MOREH
to a view which would otherwise be, not indeed absurd
(there being analogies enough for it), but at least un-
necessary-viz., that the original story of Esther (as
perhaps also that of Judith) is to be included among the
records of the oppression of the Jews, after the fall of
the kingdom, by the N. Arabian populations.
O BADIAH (ROOK).
The difficultycaused hy the statement in Esth.26 which
apparently makes Mordecai a fellow-captive of Jeconiah,’is dealt
with at length by Ryssel, who offers the suggestion that 1 t F
may really refer to Mordecai’s faniily. There is, however, a
ready explanation if the Book of Esther is based on an earlier
narrative (see OHADIAH). If the king of Geshur or Jerahmeel
is the oppressor of the Jews in the intention of this narrative, it
was possibly said that Carmeli(9) was one of those carried
captive by the Jerahmeelites. See PURIhl, 5 6.
2. A Babylonian Jew (Ezra 2 z Neh. 7 7, papaQXaros, par\-
GOXEOS [BI, @ay8oXaros [N in Neh.1); in I Ed. 5 8 MARDOCHKUS.the relics of Micah in 385 A.D. ; but the name of the village
T. K. C.
MOREH ( M ~ P E ) ,Mt.5zz RVmg., EV FOOL (q.v.
end).
MOREH, THE HILL OF (n’$Dg i7g73,‘ the sooth-
sayer’s hill ’ ? r&Bb&e&Mwp&P I . T O Y B W M O y T O Y
bBwp [AI, BOYNOY TOY A M ~ ~[L]), E in a descrlp-
tion of the position of the Midianitish army (Judg.
71j. Usually identified with the hill above Shunem,
now called X a b i Dahi (so Baed. P), 243 ; G. A. Sm.,
h’G 397 ; Buhl, P a l 103). though G. F. Moore sup-
poses the hill intended to be near Shechem. T h e phrase,
however, is simply an editor’s ingenious attempt to
make sense of a corrupt passage. C p HAROD (T HE in favour of a reading qn~;l,seems doubtful ; the plural points
W ELL O F ) , I. ‘ Moreh ’ or rather ‘ Hammoreh ‘ should
be ‘ Gilboa ’ ; both forms are among the many corrup-
ions of ‘ Jerahrneel.’ On the true site of ‘ Gilboa ’ see
S A U L , 1 3f:, and on the origin of ‘ Moreh ’ see following
article. T. K. C.
MOREH, THE PLAIN OF (n?jD $7rC ; TH N A p y ~ Solomon’sfather, David.
THN YYHAHN [ADEL]; cp M ORIAH ), Abraham’s
first resting-place in Canaan; it was a t the spot
where Shechem afterwards stood (Gen. 126 ; but see
S HECHEM). AV’s rendering plain,’ however, is in-
admissible ; it is borrowed from Jerome, and ultimately
from the Aramaic translators (Onk., Jon., Sam., Tg.
~ i g ? ’ ~who
) . may have wished to save Abraham from
the suspicion of tree-worship. RV renders ‘ t h e oak
(mg., terebinth) of Moreh.’ So Tuch (1838), com-
paring ‘ t h e oaks of Manire’ (Gen.1318 1413). Most
recent writers prefer ‘ t h e oak (sacred tree) of one
who gives oracles,’ and compare a the oak of augurs’
(Judg. 9 3 7 RVmg.) ; see MEONENIM. This is no doubt
a possible meaning. C p ;ryn, ‘ to give directions ’
in Dt. 33 TO Mic. 311 (of priests), Is. 9 1 4 (of prophets).
T h e analogy of ‘ Moriah’ (n.ia~,Gen. 222), however,
which is certainly the corruption of a proper name (see
M ORIAH ), suggests that Tuch and the earliest scholars
may be right, and a ’ s rendering seems to point to a n
early reading n ~ i v ,for which we may also perhaps
quote the Syriac rendering, ‘the oak of Mamre’
(Him).
The easiest solution would be ’?h, ‘Amorite.’ $
‘ Jerahmeelite,’ however, is just as possible, and is favour
the circumstance that the king of Shechem in Judg. 9 bears a
name (Abimelech)which is most probably an early distortion of
Jerahmeel, and by the prominent position of the Jerahmeelites
in early legend (see ISAAC, JACOB, and cp SHKCHEM).
The same tree is referred to again in Gen. 35 4 as ”e?, and
in Dt. 1130, where (with Sam., @) we should perhaps read
in the singular. Cp GILGAL, 5 5. T. K. C.
MORESHETH-GATH (n3 nyhm possession of
G a t h ’ ; K ~ H P O N O M I & r s e [BAQ] ; H E R E D I T A S G E T N ) ,
a place in the Shaphelah or J u d z a n lowland near the
Philistine country (Mic. 114): Though the name has
disappeared, the context forbids us to doubt where the
place lay, and Micah‘s surname ‘ t h e Morasthite’
implies that it was the home of that prophet. The
3199
MORIAH
paronomasias of the section make the interpretation diffi-
cult, and i n 114 none of the ancient versions surviving
recognises Moresheth Gath as a proper name. T h e
word Morasthite ( M k a s h t i ) was therefore obscure t o
them : but this only gives greater weight to the traditional
See pronunciation, with 0‘ in the first syllable, which is as
old as 6 , and goes against the view, taken by the
Targum both on Micah and on Jeremiah, and followed
by some moderns (including Roorda). that Micah came
from Mareshah (cp 2). 15).
When Eusebius (OS282 74) places prnpauO8eL near Eleuthero-
polis it is not likely that he is thinking of Mareshah (Maresa)
for he speaks of the former as a village, and of the latter as a’
ruin 2 m. from Elentheropolis. Jerome too, in the E j i f a j h .
Padre (Ep. 108), speaking as a n eye-’witness, distinguishes
Morasthim, with the church of Micah’s sepulchre, from Maresa.
This, indeed, was after the pretended miraculous discovery of
which then existed (PrreJ in Mich.) can hardly have been part
of a pious fraud. W. R. S.
IORIAH, or rather ‘the Moriah’ ( V l D ? ) , the
name of the mountain on which the temple a t Jeru-
salenl was built, Gen. 222 (in its present form), z Ch. 31.
Gen. 22 2 , Sam. n ~ i i Y~ ~n;H Sam. Vv. qn,ln, ‘ vision ’ ;
@, 7iJv * v 7iJv ;hr\4v (cp their rend. of niiv in 1 2 6 [see
MOREH]) ; Aq.(T. y.) ?+v Knra+avij ; Symm. (T. y.) irr~miac ;
Vg. terram visionis, connecting with 7 ~ 1 , ‘to see’ ; Pesh.
L~C-:? l&iv ; Onk. &qg xyix$ connecting with
p to fear ” Jon. n q n iibs. z Ch. 3 I, a p p ( e ) c a [BAL].
mbuntains o i the Amorites‘ [Pesh.] ; Moria [Vg.]. Whethe;
the Pesh. rendering in Gen. is rightly claimed by Di. and Ball
may he due to a later misunderstanding (see Geiger, Ursck?$,
278x). Deimel, however ( Z T K , 1899, p. 3), still takes virtually
the same position ( - ~ J = ~ ’ ? D N ,comparing Pesh., and even
Ass. Mnrtu). For Midrashic explanations of ‘Moriah ’ see
Bey. rabba, 5 5 5 (Wiinsche, 263f.). The explanatiqn df th:
Chronicler (2 Ch. 3 I ) is also of the Midrashic type ; Moriah
is the mountain where YahwS (see @ Chron.) appeared to
Great obscurity hangs about this name, which only
occurs in these two passages, and in extra-biblical
passages (Jos. Ant. i. 13 I, ~b Mdpov 6~0s)based upon
them. Until quite lately, in fact, it has been generally
assumed’ that Moriah was the ancient name of the
temple-mountain. This view, however, only goes hack
to the Chronicler, who may have derived the name
from the narrative in Genesis (cp Baudissin. Studien,
2252). That the editor of JE, who gave Gen. 221-19 its
present form, meant to attach the interriipted sacrifice
to the temple-mountain is highly probable: but he
suggests rather than states this, and the fact that he
does not make Abraham call the sacred spot ‘ t h e
Moriah ’ but (if the text is right) ‘ Yahwk-yir’k ’ ought
to have opened the eyes of the critics. T h e only
satisfactory solution is that, in the copy of E used by
the editor of J E , the word following Y ? N - $ ~in 71. z was
indistinctly written. That word was surely not 0 . 1 ~ ~
(Wellh. C H 21), as if Shechem were meant, for the
Samaritan tradition is ultimately based on a confusion
between the spots mentioned in 126 and 222 respectively.
Nor was it -+? (Di., Ball), which is not definite enough.
T h e true reading must be one of the names which speci-
ally belong to the southern border of Canaan-viz., either
~ -.:.
, m( = t h e N. Arabian Musri ; see MIZRAIM, 2 b) or
$$p??;. T h e proposal to read Miyim has been ap-
proved by Winckler, both privately and in print (GZ244.
n. I ) ; the s in ~ ? x n would easily fall out after p. Our
explanation of the story of the sacrifice of Isaac (see
I SAAC, J EHOVAH - J IREH ), however, favours ‘ Jerahmeel.’
That the scene of the story is to be placed in the Negeh
has been seen by Racon, who rather too arbitrarily reads
2 2 j ~ ;cp 201 2462 Nu. 1329 (see his Genesis, 141, n. 3 ;
1 Philo however (De Abr. 32 = 2 25, ap. Lag. Orient. 2 5 9 ,
evidently’did not share the common view. His words are,
u+ayrdrra~Brri TLYW i J I ? r \ w d ~ oUOAOVOJ,
~ n o p p o d r o n6Xaoc
b?rou7dvra TpLi)” &so”+p.p;u.
3200
 MORTAR AND PESTLE
and art. in Nebmica, -4pril 1891). Between the Jcmh-
meelite country and the land of MuSri no sharp line of
division can be drawn. See N EGEB.
The view that ‘Moreh’ (126) and ‘Moriah’ (222)
are connected-advocated in 1838 by Tuch, but prob-
ably very much older-is therefore not so incorrect as
has been supposed. The Samaritan tradition ( Z D P V
61987133) identifying the mountain of sacrifice with
Gerizim, is not solely the result of religious rivalry with
the Jews. Moreh’ (traditionally near Shecheni) and
Moriah’ are probablyenough connected. Gerizim, too,
is really not altogether an unplausible selection. No one
would speak of seeing Mt. hloriah at a distance, nor does
the expression ‘ on the third day ’ suit Jerusalem as well
as it suits Gerizim. It it needless, however, to revive the
old controversy, which loses its basis when a keen
criticism is applied to the text in the light of passages
already found to contain the names Misrim and Jerah-
meel. See, further, J EHOVAH- JIREH.
And what shall we say of the proceeding attributed
to the ancient editor of J E ? Did he, as Wellhausen
( C H 2 1 ) supposes, invent the name n;?bg, ‘ the Moriah,’
in order to displace the true reading (Le., as We.
thinks, o,?$Q, the Hamorites’) with the least amount
of violence, while at the same time suggesting the
thought of David’s vision ? Surely not. Corruptions
of the text arose very early (cp G ILEAD , J A C O B ). The
editor had before him an indistinctly written text, and,
helped by a special devotion to the temple at Jerusalem,
imagined that he read ;I’uiD (?nu), which he explained
as = n; y p , ’ the appearance of Yahwh’ The name,
however, which had never before been heard of, made
no impression on the Jewish mind, till the Chronicler
(in what form, may be left uncertain) gave it currency.
T o hold with Grill ( Z A T W 4 [1884]144f.) that Moriah,
as a name for the temple-mount, is at least as old as the
name Jerusalem, and to explain it as = a; n-!in, ‘ founda-
tion of YahwP,’ is a view which, though supported by
Konig (Lehged.ii 1480), is by no means natural or
philologically plausible. T. K. C.
MORTAR AND PESTLE. The historically oldest
mode of making the grains of cereals more palatable
was to roast them (see FOOD, 3 I [a]). I t was found still
more profitable, however, to release the mealy kernel
by rubbing the grains between two stones, a method
still in vogue among many civilised races. The lower
and larger stone might be slightly concave like the
Scottish ‘ saddle-querns.’ or might be flat and sloping
towards the front as in Egypt, whilst the rubbing stone
was flat on one side and round on the other, with
rounded ends, like an egg cut lengthwise. Such querns
are still, or were till recently, used for grinding dura
(Niebuhr, Dtlscript. de Z’drabie, 4 5 , with illustration,
co.pied in Bmzinger, HA 85 ; Nowack, H d l r r o ) .
Along with mortars, they were the only means by which
the ancient Egyptians obtained their flour (see statuette
of slave-girl a t N-ork, Ernian, Egypt, 190). A number
of rnbbing stones were found by Bliss in the mound of
Tel-el-Hesy, and are figured by him (froma photograph)
in A Mound of Many
A more efficient mode of obtaining the same results
was by means of the mortar ( n i p rnt?dJkah, Nu. 118,
6 ,Outs ; also W ..R .~ ? ,rnaktG Prov. 27 22 ; Aq., Theod.,
(iXpos ; in later Hebrew more frequently nen?p, .. mak-
tdfeth) and pestle (-b, ‘Uip Pr., Z.C. ; 6 ,Aq., etc.,
here and 6 B W a A 2331, bmpos). Both mortar and
pestle were in ordinary cases either of wood-probably,
1 Local names are not generally compounded with r7:, though
W. M. Muller ( A s . u. Earr.) mentiins some in pre-Israelitish
times which have the appearance of being so compounded.
2 Wilkinson’s paragraph on the mills of the early Egyptians
(Manners and Cusfoms, etc. [1878] 1359) is shown, by his
editor Birch in a footnote (Z.C.), to he a mistake. C p Erman,
og. cit. 189.
103 3201
MORTAR AND PESTLE
as at the present day, a section of the trunk of a
tree-or of stone; specimens in the latter material
were also found a t Tel-el-Hesy (illustr. up. Bliss, L e . ) .
Copper mortars were likewise in use, and in the temple
the mortars in which the family of Abtines pounded the
spices for the sacred incense were of gold.
According t o Jewish tradition they were among the spoils
which Titus took with him to Rome (Edersheim Hamburger),
and accordin- to some the cup-like vessels which appear on
the table of ?hewbread on the Arch of Titus are two of these
mortars.1
In N T times a mortar was an article of furniture in
every house and, as we learn from the Mishna, was
used for pounding, besides wheat and barley, a variety
of substances such as vegetables, spices, salt, etc.
In the laws regulating the selling of houses the maktJshzfh
k<dzi‘i (fixed) or the mortar built, probably w$h a pedestal (see
illustr. inWilk. cited below) into the floor wasaforture and went
with the house as distingbished from the ‘moveable mortar’
which did not (866. Bath. 4 3 ; see passage in full under M IL L
$ 3). T h e average height of the household mortar and pedestai
(5+6hprov) was about three feet, and thelength of the pestle half
as much again, hence Hesiod‘s line cited by Bliimner(Teckno-
Zog;e,d. gewerbe, etc., 17). 6hpov p2v ~prm6SqvT & ~ V P W iirrepov
82 ~ p ~ m p p v . T h e pestles of the Egyptians (see illustr. in
Wilkinson, Anc. Eg. 2204) and of the Greeks (Bliimner, o j . cit.
22, from a vase) were mere slender in the middle, where they
were grasped by one hand or both, swelling slightly towards
either end where they again contracted.
Mortars are mentioned in the OT as having been
used for the preparation of the manna (Nu. 118), and
once again Prov. 27 z z : ‘ Though thou shouldest bray
a fool in a niortar [among bruised corn ( R V ; AV
wheat) with a pestle] yet will his foolishness not depart
from him.’ Toy, however, omits the words within
brackets as exceeding the poetical measure of the
half-couplet.2 In that case the expressive figure of
the poet is taken from the use of mortar and pestle to
remove the husk from the wheat before grinding.3 T h e
coarse meal obtained by this method was termed by the
Hebrews in:, girei (Lev. 214 16. RV ‘ bruised corn,’
from an unused root hi, Arab. jurasa, to crush, grind,
which gives us the modern Syrian name for the hand-
mill,jar6Sy), also ~,D’?Y,
‘drisdh (Nu. 1520, EV ‘dough,’
RVng.. ‘ coarse meal’ ; see Ges.-B~hl(’~), s . v . ) , and
perhaps ni531 or n i q 4 Y q h i f h (Prov. 27 2 2 2 S. 17 19,
RV ‘ bruised corn ’). I n order to obtain a finer meal,
the contents of the mortar might be taken out from
time to time and passed through a sieve, the coarser
grains being returned to the mortar, as we see from the
detailed illustration of the process on a n Egyptian
monument (Wilkinson, Z.C.).
T h e impoverishing effects of intemperance (Prov. 23 31) a r e
paraphrased by the Greek translators in terms of a popular
proverb. thou shalt walk more naked than a pestle (for instances
from clAsical writers see Blumner, of. cit. 18).
T h e mortar (maRit%k) gave its name to two localities in
Palestine, doubtless of a deep hollow formation, the one associ-
ated with the exploits of Samson (Judg. 15 19, E V ‘ t h e hollow
place.’ see L E H I ) , the other in or close to Jerusalem (Zeph. 1 11,
see RVmg., and cp J E R U S A L EM , $ 23, etc., and MAKTESH).
That the mortar and pestle preceded the mill among
1 T h e y are more likely to be gold censers.
2‘ [Toy’s view, however, leaves out of account n p i n Tnx;
which can hardly mean ‘ in the midst of grit (or, bruised corn),
nigin in 2 S. 17 19 being corrupt (seen. 4 below), and there being
no other proof-passage. 6 ’ s ;v pCuy ovveSpiov suggests
n’??! ; this is veryplausible, hut it is better toread nixinl T\n?
After some necessarycorrections (see Crit. Bi6.)the text become;,
Though thou argue (thy matter) with a fool in the most
public place
H i s foolishness $ill not depart from him.]
3 T h e M T with the words retained-as was noted under
C O O K I N G 5 3-has not infrequently been regarded a i a n indica-
tion of th; manufacture ofthe favourite Syrian dish &i66ek, which
consists of boiled wheat and mutton pounded together for some
hours.
4 [Strict textual criticism questions the existence of such a
word. T h e initial ; Iin nipin, nimn is hardly the article. For
Prov., Z.C., see n. z above, and in z S. Z.C. read ilil?l,
cushions in readiness for a meal). See Crii. Bib.]
3202
 MORTER
the Hebrews, as we are expressly informed was the case
among the Romans (see M ILL ), is shown by an inter-
esting example of conservativism in religious practice,
similar to the late retention of stone knives for the rite
of circumcision (Josh. 53, cp Ex. 425). In the legisla-
tion of Leviticus, it is required that the offering of the
first-fruits shall consist of early ears of wheat roasted a t
the fire, and then crushed in the mortar ( 2 1 4 ; c p
Servius’s statement quoted under MILL). A. R. s. K.
MORTER. I. ~ p hhim‘mer;
, m H h o c ; lutum
(Gen.
11 3 [cementum], Ex. 114 Is. 41 25 Nah. 3 14). The
builders of the tower of Babel are said to have used
bitumen ( E V ‘ slime ’ ) instead of mortar (see B ITUMEN).
I n Palestine the usual material is clay (Ar. (in). This
is mixed with chopped straw which serves the same
purpose as the ox-hair which our plasterers mix with
their plaster. Besides this, there is a mortar made
from sand, ashes, and lime, well pounded and mixed
with oil. ‘ Nothing affords a stronger manifestation
of persevering and patient labour than the long-con-
tinued and repeated beatings to which the Orientals
subject the plaster (of lime, ashes, and straw), which is
more especially intended to resist wet, and which does
most effectually answer that purpose ’ (Kitto, Pict. Bib.,
Ezek. 13 I O ) ; cp H OUSE , 5 I. Mortar is usually trodden
with the feet (Nah. 314) ; but wheels may also be used.
2. l3g, ‘ i p z i r ; p i s ; Znfum
Lev 1442 45). See above.
3. In Ezek. 13 IO$ 14f: 22 z8t \pn &
iiused, for which E V
has ‘daub with untempered [mortar]’ (cp Ar. fafdZ, ‘dry loam
or clay’). This rendering goes back to Vg. ‘linire luto absque
paleis’ (once), ‘linire absque temperamento’ (thrice) ; hut the
figure seems to be that the prophets whitewash, or give sanction
and plausibility to, the popular scheme (likened to a mud wall).
4. &,
So @ L A ~ i + a v )and the moderns.
mPZeg; B B H A Q om. Uer. 439t RV, AV clay). Read-
ing uncertain (see CLAY).
MOSERA, KV Moserah ( q i D ; M E I ~ A A + I [BA],
M I C A A ~ [L]), Dt. 106t, or Moseroth (nIlpD, MAC-
coypwe, - p O y B [BF’], M A C 0 , Y P O Y e [A12 - W e [&]),
Nu. 3330f:t, a station in the Wilderness of Wanderings
(see W ANDERINGS ). T h e termination -ah in Moserah,
however, is locative. The name seems to be really
traditional, and it is difficult not to place it in the
neighbourhood of Kadesh. If so, MdsEr may be a
corruption of AM, MiSsur-i,e., the N. Arabian land of
Musri, This is a conjecture ; but we are bound to give
a t least a conjectural explanation of the statement ‘ there
Aaron died, and there he was buried’ (Dt. 106). Cp
Nu. 2 o z z - z 8 , and see H O K ,M OUNT , I . T. K. C.
MOSES
CONTENTS
Earlier criticism (%I). Clans at Kadesh (6 12).
Names (9 2). Accounts of theophany (8 13).
Ark of bulrnshes (I 3). Historical element (S 14).
Born in Egypt? ($ 4). Meribah, Dathan, etc. (5 IS).
A Yahwe clan (B ._-4. Death of Moses (9 16).
Misrim (8 6). Balak etc. (B 17).
Ex: 4 24-26. Zipporah (5 7). Conqdent of Cusban (S IS).
Elaboration of story (I 8). Moses and Eliiah (6 io).
Interviews with Pharaoh ($ 9). Other references ($zoj.
Yam Siiph (9 IO). Extra-biblical (( 21).
N. Arabian sojourn (I 11). Result (S 22).
‘ There hath not arisen a prophet since in Israel like
unto Moses, whom Yahwe knew face to face ’ (Dt. 34 IO).
This is the enthusiastic eulogy of a late
1. editor reflecting on the beautiful picture of
criticism. an ideal ‘ man of God’ presented in the
composite narrative. Every true Jew and every true
Christian must read it with reverence and sympathy.
Still, trne devoutness does not exclude historical criti-
cism, and as critical students we are bound to remember
that every religion which is not simply autochthonous
and primitive displays considerable eagerness in doing
honour to its real or supposed founder. Now, the influ-
ence of great personalities-too great to be altogether
3203
MOSES
tied down by tradition and convention-upon the re-
ligions of the most gifted races cannot indeed be over-
looked ; but it is only too easy for the adherents of a
religion to assign too many achievements to its rightly or
wrongly assumed chief prophet and legislator.
Feeling this tendencyvery strongly, Ewald endeavoured
to reduce the propheric and legislative work of Moses
to ‘ those essential truths and social arrangements which
constitute the motive power of the whole history. ’ ‘ W e
must not,‘ he says, ’ be startled by the grandeur of the
former or the wonderful nature of the latter, so as to
reject anything because it appears incredible. For all
the greatest and most enduring ideas that actuate and
glorify the subsequent history, must have arisen in that
sacred birthday of the community; and . .
. at such
extraordinary epochs, and among a people such as Israel
then was. the most wonderful things became possible’
(Hist. 2 107).
Few of us are still satisfied with the mixture of
abstract religious philosophy and arbitrary criticism
furnished by Ewald. His notion of what Israel then
was’ being purely imaginative, there can be no sound
or durable basis to his reconstruction of Moses and his
teaching. To the Israelites, as we now begin to know
them from a truly historical criticism, the ‘abstract
ideas’ which Ewald finds in ‘ t h e Mosaic economy’
would have been ‘ a stone instead of bread.’ If such
a person as Moses existed, he can, in working for such
a people as the Israelites, only have occupied himself
with the practical questions of the time; otherwise
indeed the subsequent history of Israel is inconceivable.
H e had to unite the tribes on a permanent basis, and
this basis could only be a religious one. H e must
therefore have been a worshipper and spokesman of
Yahw&in some special sense, and have devoted himself
successfully to the task of making this God more
generally worshipped. I n order to do this, however, h e
must first of all bave brought the scattered clans of Israel
together, and, if we assume that some of them were in
the land of ‘ Goshen,’ that Goshen was in Egypt, and that
theEgyptianauthorities hindered theremoval of the clans,
Moses must have had the greatest difficulties to cope with,
and very justly, from a teleological point of view, may
his success appear an extraordinary divine interposition.
More than this we cannot venture, even from a moder-
ately conservative point of view, to That
there was a marked difference between the religion pro-
moted, as is supposed, by Moses and that of (say) the
Kenites, cannot be asserted. That morality counted
for more with Moses than (say) with Jethro, is incon-
sistent with the facts recorded in the Book of Judges,
from which facts we may infer with some degree of
accuracy what the moral state of the Israelites before
the entrance into Canaan must have been. Morality,
indeed, cannot as yet have emerged from rule and
tradition, nor can the decisions given by Moses beside
the sacred tree and well safely be regarded even as its
germs.
The historical character of Moses, however, has been
rather postulated than proved by recent critics. Without
it, they find it difficult or impossible to explain the
ethical impulse and tendency which, at any rate from
the time of the prophet Amos (and Amos, be it re-
membered, presupposes that this impulse is no novelty),
is conspicuous in the history of Israelitish religion.
Moreover, the name ‘Moses’ not only represents a
great though little-known personality; it is also a
symbol of a colossal fact asserted by the later tradition
-viz., the deliverance of the clans or tribes of Israel
1 Cp Wellh. H i d . of IsraeZ andJudak(31, 16 (1891); I / c 17
‘‘t9$p Stade, GVI (IS&?), 130; Akad. Reden (1899), 107 f:;
Smend, A T ReZ.-gesch.(9(1899), p. I,$ ; Montefiore, Hiblerf
Lectures 1892, p. r4f:
3 See ’Budde Rel. of Isr. 331: Note that ‘law’ in the
English editiod of this hook corresponds to Recit in the
German.
3204
 MOSES
from Egyptian bondage, and the recognition of Yahw&
by these united clans as the deity who had proved
himself mightier and consequently more divine than
the gods of Egypt (cp Ex. 1810f.,J), and required
from them a gratitude and an obedience, out of
which in the fulness of time a true ethical conscious-
ness and an ethical monotheism might be expected to
develop.
The task at present before scholars is to examine
these assumptions of recent criticism, and since criticism
is bound to be progressive and to correct its own errors,
we shall proceed to study various unobserved or neglected
facts, which, it will be seen, are adverse even to the
highly mitigated traditionalism to which critics twenty
or even ten years ago were addicted. W e shall not
forget the need of circumspection ; but our circum-
spection w-ill have to apply itself in as yet unfamiliat
ways.
First of all, however, we must deal with the name
'Moses' and the other related names, and ask, What
a. Names. do they mean ? and what have they to teach
us? The name of Moses appears in the
O T as 31+3, MOSB-; the Arabic form of this is MBsH.
I n Josephus and Philo, and in MSS of the LXX and
N T generally, we meet with the Grzecised form p w u q s
(cp Vg. Moyses) : there is a constant variant, however,
pwoqr. If the O T form were correct, and the name
Hebrew, the obvious meaning would be ' deliverer '
(Jnwn, ' t o draw out' ; cp z S. 22 17 = Ps. 18 17): There
IS no trace, however, of such a n explanation any-
where in the OT. Pharaohs daughter, who is sup-
posed to speak Hebrew, calls the foundling MZB,
'because I drew him out of the water ' (Ex. 2 IO [E]).
That E had any thought of an Egyptian origin is im-
probable; the name M3.B is strikingly unlike any of
the names given as Egyptian in the story of Joseph.
and the Hebrew connection suggested for the name
by E has no parallel in the Joseph story except in the
accounts of non- Egyptian names like Ephraim and
Manasseh.
At a much later time it became important to tighten
the connection between the Jews and the Egyptians;
on the Ethiopian war of Moses, see § 21. Josephus
(Ant. ii. 96 ; c. Ap. 1 3 1 ) and Philo ( Vif. Moys. 1 4 )
therefore were dissatisfied with the vague statement of
Pharaoh's daughter, and explained the name Moses as
='saved from the water,' a theory to which Jablonski
(O$uscc. 11 5 z g ) gave a quasi-philological character.
Hence for a time the Coptic etymology, mo 'water,'
and use ' rescued,' obtained general currency, though a
genuine Egyptian name meaning ' saved from the water '
would be quite differently formed ( Z D M G 25 141).
At present, a more plausible etymology (suggested
by Lepsius, Cltronologie, 326 ; cp Ebers, Uuych Gosen,
5 z s f . ) is in vogue. There is a n Egyptian word mer or
mcsu, meaning 'child,' which sometimes occurs as a
name by itself, and sometimes as the second part of a
theophorous name (e.g., in the royal names Thotmes,
Ahmes. Ramessu). Dillmann (Ex.-Lev. 16) would
take Moses ' = mesu to be the original name ; Renan
(Hist. 1 1 6 0 ) and Guthe ( G V I 118991, 20) prefer to
t&e it as an abbreviation of a theophorous Egyptian
name.
T h e special objection to these widely held views2 is
fourfold. ( I ) The vowel in nres, mesu (or, according to
W. M. Muller, more) is short, whereas the corresponding
vowel in M6S& is long, and the sibilants in the two
words are different.3 (2) T h e Hebrews would surely
not have accepted a name for their hero from their
1 So Rudde, 0). cit., 35-38.
2 Giesebrecht Gesckicktlickkeit des Sinai6undes (IF), p. I
regards the ' Eiyptian name' of hfoses a5 a fact which confirm;
the statement that Moses came forward in Egypt ; and Wellh.
(IfCP) 14, n. I) appears to beuntrouhled by doubts. Holzinger,
however (Ex. 6), says that the name i@ is 'unexplained.'
3 From a private communication of Prof. W. Max hliiller.
3205
MOSES
Egyptian oppressors ; the supposed Egyptian etymo-
logies of PHINEHAS and H OR are not safe enough to be
quoted on the other side as parallels. ( 3 ) A close
examination of the traditions respecting Moses connects
him much more certainly with N. Arabia than with
Egypt. (4)The points of contact between lsraelitish
and Egyptian religious customs are few and unimportant,
which would be strange, if Moses had received a name
which naturalised him as an Egyptian.
I t remains to interpret the name of M6SB on the
analogy of the names of Moses' nearest relations which
express ethnic, more precisely, the present writer now
thinks, N. Arabian affinities.
These names, with the explanations here suggested are ( I )
Amram, probably a development of Jerahmeel; ( 2 ) J ~ C H O B E I )
(9.v.), perhaps the original of the tribal name known to us as
Ja'akoh (Jacob): (3) Aharon (Aaron), probably a distorted frag-
ment of Jerahmeel ; ( 4 ) M I R I A M (p.~.), a distortion either of
hlerari [Mi;sril or of Amramith ; (5) ZirroRAH (P.v.), probably=
Zarephath-i.e., a personification of the Zarephathites, a branch
ofthe Misrim of N. Arabia (see ZAREPHATH) ; (6) G e r s h o m ' L
z.c., belonging to the G i r h or GiSru orGegurim of the Negeb of
Palestine (see GIRZITES).
If the explanation of these names now snggested be
accepted they record the early connection of the Israelites
with populations of N. Arabia, where Horeb (the sacred
mountain with which Moses is so closely associated) was
situated (see S INAI ). The presumption therefore is that
3?0, M S B , also is N. Arabian. I t might be connected
with >?:?, ' Misrite,' h?issBr being the general name of
the country referred to (see MIZRAIM). M6SB is virtu-
ally identical with M G i , which, in Ex. 619 [PI. is the
name of a son of Merari b. Levi ; indeed, in I Ch.
2427 (cpv. 26), SHOHAM ( i t . , MGC, corrupted by
transposition) occurs in lieu of MSi. The other son of
Merari is called Mahli (elsewhere explained a s = Jerah-
meel), and we may assume that M S B , MGi, and Merari
are all developments or distortions of some collateral
form of Misri3 ( L e . , 'one belonging to the land of
Missur ').
It may be objected to this view that in the earliest
tradition (J), as it now stands, the father, the mother,
and the sister of Moses are nameless, and that Aaron
appears in this document 'only to disappear' (S-AARON.
§ 4). The answer is ( I ) that the want of names in Ex.
21 4 may be due to Rp, who found the original names
inconsistent with his material in chap. 6 (so Bacon), and
( 2 ) that, on the theory advocated above, the tradition of
the migration led by 'Moses' is in fact necessarily
without personal names, the names Moses, Amrani.
Jochebed, etc., being all ethnic, and not really borne by
individuals. All that the earliest tradition knew was
that a tribe closely connected with the Misrites and
Jerahmeelites, and specially addicted to the worship of
Yahwb, the god of Horeb, played a leading part in the
migration of the Israelites into Canaan. This earliest
tradition comes to us in part through P, whose lateness
as a writer does not detract from the value of any
information which he cannot have invented, and proh-
ably derived from early traditional sources.
The tradition respecting the child Moses in the box
(basket ? j of papyrus-reeds (EV ' ark of bulrushes ' ; see
The ark of RUSHES,1 ) is told only by E. Accord-
to this writer, Moses, the child of a
'bulrushes. ing man and a woman of the tribe of Levi
(see J OCHERED ), was hidden among the reeds by the
Nile, on account of a cruel edict that all male children
of Hebrews should be put to death (cp Mt. 216).
1 According to Manetho (in Jos. c. Ap. i. 26,f) the Egyptian
name of the leader of the 'lepers' was Osarsiph : but when he
went over to mi70 r b yiwos, he received the name of Moses. Cp
JOSEPH ii., 88 I , 11. Chieremon (2.132) makes the Egyptian
name of Moses Tisithen.
2 Zipporah's second son Eliezer is only a doublet of Aaron s
son ELEAZAR(~.V., I ) , the ethnic origin of whose name may be
presumed but is not definitely explained.
3 W e ckn hardly therefore look for a n Assyrian etymology of
Mows (eg., ma&', to be bright). Cp Sayce, Rel. Ass. Bm5.
46.8
3206
 MOSES
Moses’ sister watched him, till the daughter of Pharaoh‘
saw the weeping child, and had compassion on him.
Through his sister’s cleverness he enjoyed maternal
nursing, but was afterwards adopted as her son by
Pharaoh’s daughter.
This charmingly told story is of mythic origin.2 T h e
tale of the setting adrift of a divine or heroic infant on
water is also a tradition of the Babylonians, the Greeks,
the Romans, the Germans, and even the J a p a n e ~ e . ~
It is significant that the Hebrew word for ‘ a r k ’ occurs
only twice--in Ex. 2 3 5 and in Gen. 6 r 4 8 (Deluge)-
and we may venture to suppose that the story of Moses
has absorbed one of the details of a popular story either
of Creation (cp the Japanese myth) or of the Deluge
(which is a second Creation, cp D ELUGE , 5 19). The
story gained immensely by this. The hero who was
destined to lead his people through a ‘sea,’ and to be
worsted by no obstacles, ought, in poetical fitness, to
baffle his enemies even in infancy.
Of the parallel non-Jewish stories it is only necessary
to quote one-that of Sargon of AgadC. This remark-
atile tale, which boldly claims the authority of Sargon,
begins thus (cp B IT U M E N , col. 589) :-
‘Sargina, the powerful king, the king of Agade am I. M y
mother was poor my father I knew not ; the brother of my father
lived in the mountains ... My mother, who was poor, con-
ceived me, and secretly gave birth to me ; she placed me in a
basket of reeds, she shut up the mouth of it with bitumen, she
abandoned me to the river, which did not overwhelm me. T h e
river bore me away and brought me to Akki the irrigator. Akki
the irrigator received me in the goodness of h~ heart. Akki
the irrigator reared me to boyhood. Akki the irrigator made
me a gardener. M,: service as a gardener was pleasing unto
IHtar and I became king. 5
Such a story as this, apart from the detail about the
gardener, was probably floating in popular Hebrew
tradition, and when men began to ask what happened
t o Moses before he became Hobabs (or Jethro’s) son-
in-law, it occurred to a narrator to transfer it to the
biography of Moses. When the tradition was thus
enriched, it of course stated that Moses drew his first
breath in the land of Egypt. T h e story of the ‘ ark ’ is
adapted only to the region of the Nile or the Euphrates,
and J , though in its present form his account of Moses
begins (apparently) with the aid rendered by Moses to
Hobab’s daughters6 (Ex.2 1 6 J ) , distinctly states that
Moses had fled to Midian7 (or rather Musri) from
Egypt.
It is not, however, an easy matter to understand how
Moses can have left his fellow-tribesmen in Egypt and
4. Born in settled with Hobab.8 The narrator who
Egypt or made him the adopted son of Pharaoh’s
in Musri. daughter only increased the difficulty ; for
if Moses had been reared as an Egyptian,
he would naturally have received an Egyptian office and
an Egyptian wife. Moreover, let it now be noticed that
we have in I K. 111 7 5 , in its present form, the account
1 Josephus (Ant. ii. 9 5 ) c+ls her Thermutis ; Artapanus (in
Eus. Pya,). Ev. 9 27) Merris. C p col. -0.
2 Ewald (Hist. 2 42) long ago saw this ; so also Ebers, Durck
Gosen (1872)~72.
3 The Japanese myth is that the first child born to the divine
pair, Izanagi and Izanami, the parents of gods and men, was
set adrift in an ark of reeds. The story (which is admitted a s
genuine by Tylor, Remavks onJnpanesc Mythology) is told in
connection with an account of Creation. For a wider circle of
kindred stories see A. Bauer, Die Cyvos-sap und Venuandtes;
K . Schubert Herodofs Darstellr~ngder Cyrussage.
4 Note thht no name is mentioned (apart from Akki) hut that
of Sargina. So in the story of Moses in Ex.2 n o name is given
but that of Moses. The cause of Sarcina’s exposure is not
mentioned.
5 R. W. Rogers, Hist. of Bub. a d Ass 1362 : cp KB, iii.a
100; Del. Par. y8f: Note that initu is got ‘princess ’ (as G.
Smith) hut poor.
6 In OxJ Hex., however, m.I I - I ~ Z are assigned to J (cp
Wellh., Corn.).
7 7’1”.like ill’s, is sometimes an error for W p - k , Mugri.
8 The story in
the later period.
fx. 2 12 is not in character with the Moses of
H e looked this way and that way, and when
he saw that there was no one,’ etc. One may defend the story
of the flight of Moses by the Egyptian story of Sanehat or
Sinuhit (RPP),2 Ia&), but not the cause of the flight.
3207
MOSES
of an Edomite who fled into Egypt, and was there
hospitably received by Pharaoh, who gave him the
queen’s sister to wife, and that underlying this is an
earlier and more authentic story that the asylum found
by the fugitive was in the N. Arabian Mu5ri.l T h e
suspicion naturally arises that the earliest tradition
respecting Moses represented him as an Israelite, who,
together with his clan, had been admitted to the j u s
connubii by a tribe of Midianites, or rather (see H OBAB)
Misrites, which dwelt not far from Horeb, the sacred
mountain of Yahw-P. The story of his chivalrous
conduct towards Hobab’s daughters seems to have been
suggested by that of Jacob’s friendliness to Rachel at
the well (Gen. 292-10 J). Jacob marries Rachel ; so
Moses marries Zipporah, who is one of the seven
daughters of the priest of Midian (Musri ?). Who are
these seven daughters, we ask ? Surely they represent
the seven districts of the Misrite territory, one of which
-that nearest Canaan-had, we hold, for its centre
Zarephath. ZIPPORAH(4.v.) is, in our view, a mis-
written Zarephath, just as Rachel is a distortion of
Jerahmeel. Further, let us not forget that Elijah. who
is in some important respects the double of Moses, is
closely connected by tradition with ‘ Zarephath which
belongs to MisSur’ ( I K. 1710,revised text ; see ZARE-
PHATH). T h e only doubt is whether Moses (Le., the
clan) acquired Zarephath by the cession of a Misrite
chieftain, or by conquest (see 5 17).
The story in Ex. 4 2 4 8 , being deeply corrupt, is of no value
for the story of Zipporah, and the description of her in Nu. 12 I
as a ‘ Cushite woman ’ adds nothing to our knowledge. Some
indeed (e.n.,Ewald, Hist. 2 177f;, n. 3) have supposed that it is
not Zipporah who is meant, but a n Ethiopian concubine whom
Moses took after the death of Zipporah. I t is not, however, the
Ethiopian but the N. Arabian Cush (see C USH , 2 ) that is
referred to, and Hobab, father of Z i p p r a h (Zarephath), dwelt
in MuSriZ which adjoined Cush.
By this connection the clan of MoSe (MiSri ?), as it
was now called, and apparently the whole tribe of Levi
became a priestly and in a wide sense
6.a prophetic tribe, devoted to the worship
of Y a h ~ k . ~This is thoughtfully de-
scribed by E in Ex.314669-14 as a new and solemn
revelation of God to Moses by the name Yahw-P at
‘ Horeb the mountain of God.’ J also describes a
solemn call to Moses, hut presupposes that Yahw-P is
already known to the elders of Israel in Egypt (316).
J also speaks of the mountain as *!’D 13, ‘ mount Sinai ’
(ium?, EV ‘ t h e bush,’ is less probable) ; it burned, and
was not consumed. T h e mountain (called Horeb
[mutilated from ‘ Jerahmeel ‘ ?] by E and Sinai by J ) is
described, according to a very plausible emendation of
31, as in ‘ the wilderness of Jerahrneel’ (read ia1p
5cgnr for islpg i c ~ ;) it may be Jebel Muweileh which
lies NE. of ‘Ain Gadis, E. of the Wady eS-&rZif, but
is more probably some mounfain-group nearer to
Kadesh.6 Horeb or Sinai was virtnally guarded by a
-
tribe of Yahw-P worshippers which is variously called
Keuites, Jerahmeelites (?),7 and Misrites (scarcely
Midianites).
W e are further told that Yahw-P commissioned Moses
6. Misrim. to bring out the h’ne Israel who were in
Egypt, so that they might worship Yahwh
on ‘this mountain’ (so E ) , and that he promised
1 See HADAD, and cp/QR 11 118991, 551-556; Beke, 0n;Pines
Biblice, 1118341, 307, n. 4.
2 Read 1rXp for {’ln (see preceding col. n. 7).
3 <Levi’ is doubtless a n older name than Ma& On its
origin see LEVI.
4 So Kateson Wright (Was Israel eve7 in Egyjt? 164)fin$
‘traces of a tradition that this tribe (Levi) is of Kenite origm.
5 So in Dt. 33 16 read, with Renan, qm q3w. See BUSH, and
note the differences of scholars as to the exact sense of ma, a
word which we certain1 do not expect just here, and find only
once again in a dependYent passage, Dt. 33 16. Bacon’s theory,
adopted by Bennett (Hastings D B 3 349 a) is therefore excluded.
6 Therefore not SE. of El&h (as Wellhausen). See SINAI,
and cp BEER-LAHAI-ROI, J EHOVAH - J IKEH .
7 ‘ Ben Reuel,’ Nu. 10 29, = ‘ ben Jerahmeel.’
3208
 MOSES
to give them a home in a land flowing with milk and
honey ( s o J). The present writer regards it as probable
that this land was described in the text which underlies
Ex. 38 as ‘ the larid of the Kenite, the Rehobothite, the
Jerahmeelite, and the Zarephathite ’ ; that the ‘ land
flowing with milk and honey’ was in the Negeb2 (Nu.
13215,revised text ; cp E SHCOL, P A R A D I S E , REHOB,
Z I N ) ; and even our present narrative is not without
some indications that the Exodus known to the original
tradition was a peaceful one, and that the land which
was migrated from was not Goshen but Cushan (the
N. Arabian Cush)-not Misraim (Egypt) but Misrim
( M y r i ) . Of course it is not inconceivable (cp E XODUS
I . , 9 3 ) that some clans of Israel may have been in Egypt,
and may have removed from that country to join
kindred clans in N. Arabia, one of which-the tribe of
Ixvi o r Md2-may even have gone to the land of
Goshen to escort their brethren to Kadesh. But is
there not something artificial in this construction of
history I
It is true that the story of Joseph represents Simeon
as having been kept in hondage in Egypt (Gen. 4224).
arid that we naturally suppose Simeon and L e v i to have
shared the same fate (cp Gen.495~). T h e ethnic
connections of Sinieon and Levi. however, to judge
from the valuable material in the genealogies of I Ch.
4 6, appear to have been N. Arabian; the name
Phinehas is not to be quoted as suggesting an Egyptian
element in Levi, for it is more probably of Jerahmeelite
than of Egyptian origin (see PHINEHAS). As Moses
is a member of the tribe of Levi (so closely connected
by tradition with N. Arabia) we cannot expect to find
him in Egypt, though he (i.e., his clan) may, as we have
admitted, possibly (not probably) have made an ex-
pedition to the Egyptian frontier.
That the Moses-clan was a t any rate composed of
,,
fearless warriors (cp Ex. 32z6f. and contrast the timid
Ex. 424-26. Moses of Ex. a n ) is shown by the story
which underlies the certainly corrupt
narrative in Ex.424-26. As it now stands, the narrative
relates in most obscure terms how Zipporah protected
her husband against the angry Yahwe (!) by circumcis-
ing her son (see C IKCUMCISION , 2). Really, how-
ever, in our view, the passage describes a feat of
martial prowess comparable to that ascribed to Shamgar
in Judg. 3 3 1 (see Crit. Liib.).
We read thus ‘And it came to pass in the wilderness of
Jerahmeel that jerahmeelites (ie., Amalekites, raiders who had
no fixed settlements) fell upon him and sought to slay him.
And he took an ox-goad, and smote the jerahmeelites, ad :
thought, I have wiped out the Jerahmeelites’ (cp Ex. 17 14J, 1
will wipe out the name of Amalek,’ etc.). To explain this it
may be noted that the word ‘ Jerahmeelites’ has, we believe, a
twofold meaning : (I) those of Jerahmeelite origin,(2) Bedouins.
T h e tradition of the Exodus, as we now have it, is
indeed extremelv inconsistent. At one time it delineates
*. Elaboration a Moses who must be an individual
(e.g., Ex.3-423) ; a t another, it enables
of story. us to see Dlainlv that Moses is 110
I 1
individual, but a clan. W e need not wonder a t these
variations. T h e original tradition, which had to do
chiefly with tribes, was too strong to be altogether
transformed : but the tendency of storytellers to
individualise altered the primitive tradition in many
points. Here is an instance. W e have seen how the
infancy of Moses was glorified; tradition was equally
careful to give the hero a suitable equipment as a prophet
of Yahw&. A prophet, according to the primitive notion,
must be a thaumaturgist ; Moses therefore needed a
wonder-working staff.3
1 In Ex.38, as it now stands, these names have hecome
‘Canaanite, Hittite, Amorite, Periznte’ ; ‘ Hivite’and ‘Jehusite
have been added.
So in I S. 18 25-27 the ‘hundred foreskins’(nrily ~ H D may
) Eudge’s edition, 196) we read ‘ We saw in that river a reed the
have come by corruption from ‘Jerahmeelites’(&any).
The
whole story becomes quite plain and natural. Cp SHECHEM, garland which a man puts on,his head. The whole city was
and see Crit. Bi6.
3 In Ex. 420 6 paraphrases 7i)u $$?8ov 7i)v rap; TOG #FOG.
3209
MOSES
According to J, Yahwi: vouchsafed to give a supernatural
lower to the shepherd’sstaff i n the hand of Moses (4 z f l ) ; Imt
gets rid of the thaumaturgic element as soon as he can. E, on
he other hand, states that God entrusted Moses with a jtaff
,vhich he had not previously possessed, to perform his wonderful
works (4 17 ; cp a d ) , and that of the five plagues inflicted upon
.he Egy tians by Moses four (Le., all except the death of the
irstbornf were bfought by his lifting up or stretching out his
itaff, and the striking story of Rephidim turns entirely on the
iplifting of the hand with the staff. P, too, attaches much
mportance to the staff, though i t is of Aaron’s staff that this
writer speaks. Four out of the six plagues were inflicted by its
means, whilst in the case of the fifth, the boils were brought
ibout by Moses throwing soot into the air before Pharaoh. So
o the passage of the y a m sG#h (see helow 5 IO), E tells us
~ o at
.1416) of a command of God that Moses should lift up his staff
cover the sea), whilst P (d., cp 21) is content with the stretching
>ut of the hands ; in either case the phraseology has an irnplica-
tion of magic art. Cp PLAGUES [TENJ.
The demand addressed to Pharaoh by Moses next
requires attention. J puts it thus, ‘ And they said, The
9. Interviews God of the Hebrews has met with us ;
with Pharaoh. let us go three days’ journey into the
wilderness, and sacrifice fb Yahwe,
lest he fall on us with pestilence or with the sword’
(53 [*I; cp 318 827) ; and again. ‘And Moses said,
We will go with our young and with our old, with our
sons and with our daughters, with our flocks and with
our herds will we go ; for we must hold a feast to YahwB’
(lo9); and yet again, ‘ And Moses said, Thou must
also give into our hand sacrifices and burnt offer-
ings. .. Our cattle also shall go with us ; there shall
not a hoof be left behind ; for thereof must we take to
serve Yahw6 our God ; and we know not with what we
must serve Yahwe till we come thither‘ (1025 f:).
Elsewhere (see P LAGUES, T EN ) we have commented
on the imperfect truthfulness of these demands ; here,
therefore, it is enough to refer to the phrase Rag YnhwP.
‘feast of YahwB’ ( l o g ) . This phrase confirms our
previous suspicion that the Egyptian training of Moses
is not a feature of the original tradition, the notion
which underlies the word bag ( L e . , probably, a solemn
circuit round a sacred object) being specially Arabian
(cp D ANCE , 3). T h e phrase ‘three days’ journey’
also deserves notice. It might indeed be a mere
stylistic idiom (cp Gen.3036 Nu. 1033) ; but it is
expressly put into Moses’ mouth by YahwC (318);
accordingly it is used by Moses twice. Moreover, when
Moses ‘ led Israel onward from the yam sziph. and they
went out into the wilderness of Shur (MiSSur?),’we are
told that ‘ they went three days in the desert, and found
no water’ (Ex. 1522) ; shortly afterwards they came to
Sinai. It is possible, then, that Horeb or Sinai was
represented in the primitive story as three days’ journey
in the desert of MnSri. Yet it was certainly much more
than three days’ journey from the Red Sea. This may
lo. The y a perhaps~ favour the view, to which the
manifold difficulties of the story of the
81Lph. passage of the sea give some plausibility,
that the yam sziph, like the waters of M A R A H [ q . ~ ] .
had originally no existence outside the ideal wonder-
land to which we are introduced in Gen. 2. If this view
be accepted, the traditional story of the passage of the
sea (religiously so impressive) has come out of a myth
which like that of the ‘ark of bulrushes,’ originally
floated in tradition apart from any historical setting’--
a myth of the destruction of certain enemies of YahwC
in a ’ sea of reeds ’ by a great wonder-working prophet.
Perhaps, if the reading yam sziph is the original one
(see 1 I O ), no better explanation is available. W e are
a t any rate liberated by it from a view of the early
history of the Israelites which is encompassed with
difficulty.
It has indeed been ably attempted elsewhere (see
1 In the Syriac version of the Legend of Alexander (3 7 ;
height of which was thirty cubits, and its thickness as t h a t of a
‘overshadowed by these reeds. Cp the suggestive remark in
Wi. G I 2 92.
3210
 MOSES
EXODUS i., 5s 10-16) to make the story of the yam s q h
(interpreted as the Red Sea) geographically, and there-
fore to some extent also historically, intelligible. The
attempt could only be made provisionally. From
Egyptian sources we have no confirmation of the story,
nor is there the least chance of our getting any, and to
rely on the unconfirmed accounts of such comparatively
late writers as J and E, and on a supposed fragment of
a commemorative song from the e Mosaic age ' (Ex. * the right names are probably MiSrim, Arbhim. Misrim,
151-3),would not be a critical procedure. Investiga-
tion had to proceed tentatively, and since the first
efforts have met with doubtful success, we must now
try again, and enter on paths partly marked out long
ago by an English scholar, confident that religion can
only gain by the fullest investigation of its history. See,
further, KED SEA.
The story of the ' Plagues of Egypt ' will receive
separate consideration (see P LAGUES [TEN], especially
Suffice it to say here that the
ll. N. Arabian 5 5 ) .
original tradition was probably ignorant
sojourn. of the existence of ill-feeling between
Misrites and Israelites. I t is as friends that the MiSrite
and the Israelite women part. They have long been
neighbours or even housemates, and the Misrites who
slay behind do not grudge their precious jewels to their
departing friends (Ex. 322). Indeed, some of the N.
Arabians (17 >iy, in M T of Ex. 1 2 3 8 ; AV 'mixed
multitude') or Zarephathites ( ' ; o ~ o x M . T of Nu. 1 1 4 ;
AV 'mixed multitude'), especially Hobab (Nu. 1029,
Judg. 1 16 4 I I ) , accompany the Israelites. See M INGLED
PEOPLE. Nor need we trouble ourselves too much
about the names Goshen, Pithom. Rameses (Raamses),
Pihahiroth, Baal-zephon, Succoth, Etham ; for, in spite
of a prevalent opinion which is deserving of all respect,
it is probably best to explain them as names of the
Negeb of S . Palestine or N. Arabia.2
( a ) It is, a t any rate of the highest importance that a
number of O T passages become satisfactorily clear only
when we assume them to refer to a sojourn of the
Israelites in Arabia. The witness of Jeroboam, son
of iVebat. depends, it is true, on emendations of the text
of I K. 1225-33 (see S HECHEM ) ; but the emendations
are such as cannot safely be disregarded, and they
appear to prove that Jeroboam uttered these words,
speaking of the golden car,," 'Behold, thy god, 0
Israel, who brought thee up out of the land of
Misrim. '
( b ) In Am. 9 7 emendation is again employed ; but the
obscurity of the passage fully justifies it. ' Have not I
brought u p Israel out of the land of Misrim, from
Rehoboth of Jerahmeel,' follows naturally on w. g,
'Are ye not as the bne Cushim (the Cushites of N.
Arabia) to me, 0 ye bn5 Israel? saith Yahwb.' See
REHOKOTH.
(6) T h e passage Am. 525-27 is hardly intelligible as it
stands. When emended, it becomes full of suggestion.
Read, ' D o ye bring me sacrifices and offerings in
he wilderness of the Arabians, 0 house of Israel?
Then the Cushites, the Jerahrneelites, and the Kenites,
and the Salmzans (see SALMA) shall take you away,
and I will carry you into exile beyond Cusham, saith
1 See the commentaries of Baentsch and Holzinger, and cp
OPs. 31, n. g. It seems hazardous to make the 'Song of
Moses' earlier than the earliest of the psalms in the Psalter.
2 Cushan, [Sarelphathim, Jerahmeel, Rehohoth, Zaphan
(inferred from Zephani[ah]), Maacath, Ethan are the possible
originals. Of course, it is also possible that the names were in-
serted to make the Exodus from Egypt plausible. When, how-
ever, we remember the result mentioned above of the N.
Arabian affinities of the period names connected with the
Exodus (Moses Aaron, Miriam, Hur, Phinehas etc.), we
naturally inclink to interpret the local names ih a similar
way.
3 Possibly the idea that there were t71m calves arose when
' Bethel ' and ' Dan' were supposed to he differentplaces : really
' Bethel ' may have lain close to ' Dan ' (see SHECHEM). The
story in Ex.3 2 4 8 favours the view that there was hut one calf,
and so does Is. 578, if the text has been rightly emended (see
MBMORIAL, z).
3211
MOSES
Yahw&.'I There are parallels for this in the book of
Amos itself (see the next passage, and P ARADISE ).
(4) Now, too, it becomes plain how Am. 210 was
originally read. ' But it was I that brought you up out
of the land of Misrim, and led you through the wilder-
ness of the Arabians.' a
( e ) A similar statement is made in Mic. 64. where
according to an emendation that seems to be called for,
Jerahme'elim (see M ICAH [BOOK], 3 [ A ] . I).
Thus the prophets, if we have recovered their text.
are on the side of the new theory. It is only in post-
exilic passages like Is. 1026 111 5 3 43 16f. 51 IO 63 II
Ps. 666 7717f:zo 781353 10679 11435 13613 Neh. 99x1
that we find unmistakable allusions to the Exodus from
Egypt. I t is also a prophet (see above, 6 ) who enables
us to trace the genesis of the story of the forty years'
wandering in the wilderness. I t arose in an ancient
scribe's chamber, and was the result of reading o,y??~,
' forty,' instead of o*??v, ' Arabians ' (cp Kirjath-arba,
' city of four,' for Kirjath-arxh, city of Arabia ' ?). If
the reader will now turn to Ex. 13314 202, Dt. 56
612 8 14 1 3 5 IO, Josh. 24 17, Judg. 68, he will be
struck by the great improvement effected by simply
reading n-iiy, ' Arabians,' for o*i>y,. ' servants ' ; the
' house ( =territory) of the Arabians is clearly a much
better parallel to ' the land of o * i q ' than the phrase
which now stands in the text-viz.. ' the house of
bondage ' (rather, of servants). Unfortunately, we
cannot also remove the ' forty years ' from most of the
Hexateuch passages in which the phrase occurs, because
the legend had already fixed itself in the literary circles
to which the writers of those passages belonged. In
Nu. 1433 ( J ) , however, on which 3213 is dependent.
it is quite possible. T h e legend is therefore subse-
quent to J, and anterior to the parametic part of Dt.
and to P.
So far as the residence in a M i + n ( ~ y s ~which ) was not
Egypt is concerned, we have the sup ort of Beke, who attempts
it is true to rescue far too much o?the traditional narratives'
hut is on)safe ground when he argues that ' t h e land of Goshe;
or of Rameses was an integral and as I should contend a
principal part of the kingdom of Mitiraim ' (Uri&%es Sil&,
1277). His geographical definition of p*imis too wide ; but
without the help of Assyriology it could not have been otherwise.
T h e traditional details of the journey from the. yam
s6$h to the sacred mountain now lose, not indeed their
12. Clans at feligious,J but a t any rate their historical
Interest. It is probable that no such
Kadesh' journeywas known to theoriginal tradition.
It is possible that yam nijh (190 0:) is an early corruption of
n?l:?, 'seaofZarephath,'4a synonym for nicn o*=5~nny-n*.
'sea of Jerahmee1,'-i.r., the Dead Sea(see S ALT SEA), and that
the names MARAH(q.".) and Erin1 (q.".) are but fragments of
the ethnic plural ' Jerahme'elim,' such as we often find side by
;:de in the genealogical lists of a later age. MASSAHA N D
hlERrRAH ( q . ~ . )and
, R E P H I D I M , 5 to which traditions of more
value were attached, were certainly in the territory sometimes
described as Jerahmeelite ; Massah was apparently by the rock
Jf Kadesh (see SELA), and Meribah was more fully designated
hlerihah of Kadesh (a variation of Kadesh of Jerahmeel [?1).6
1 The reference is t o the cultus of Bethel, Gilgal (=Cusham-
ierahmeel=Dan?), and Beersheha. Do ye fall back to the
-eligion of the Cushites? 'Then these very people shall take
you away.' Read-
9 @ is an erroneous gloss. It now becomes unnecessary
:o reject the whole of 2 10 as a later insertion (Nonack's theory).
3 Cp PILLAK OF C LOUD .
4 Cp Dt. 1 I , where the text of the d:
writer whom we call D2 probably read
neel, opposite Zarephath,' etc. See Su
who fused the Jliarite and the EevDtian forms of the tradition
round n ~ y ~ - oindistinctly
* writt&,- and confounded the 'sea
with a mythical 'sea of reeds ' (see $$ In).
5 The Rephidim story is apparently the justification of the
long feud hetween Israel and Amalek in later times. Cp
J EHOVAH - NISI .
6 Mr. S. A. Cook acutely compares Merihah with Meri(h)haal
3212
 MOSES
While the Moses-clan and those associated with it were a t the
sacred mountain, they were of course profoundly influenced by
the Kenites. This is suggested symbolically by E's statement
(J may have said the same thing]), that Moses received a visit
from his father-in-law, who gave him important advice relative
to his administration of justice?
This account, however, is placed out of the proper
order ; the visit was originally supposed to have occurred
near the close of the sojourn at Horeb (see Ex. 18, end).
(On Massah and Meribah, and on the gift of manna
and of quails, see special articles.)
W e have now arrived at the great Theophany and
the Mrith' (see C OVENANT ). It is imDortant to use the
13. Accounts results of critical analysis, and to keep
of Theophany. the three accounts separate. Accord-
ins to I. after the Dreliminaries described
D , I
in chap. 19. Moses, who alone approached Yahwe, re-
ceived from Yahwe the Ten Words, the words of the
i finder the conduct of the clan or tribe of Mi%&,certain
covenant ' (concerning ritual), which, at the divine com-
mand, he wrote down upon two tables of stone. ' He
was there with Yahwe forty days and forty nights ; he
neither ate bread nor drank water ' (3428). When the
time for departure comes, the people are troubled, and
put aside their ornament^,^ and Moses asks Yahwe
whom he will send with him to lead Israel to its resting
place. The answer is given, ' My panim (manifesta-
tion 5, shall go with you' (3314). Early the next
morning Moses ascends the mountain, and another
favour is granted ; ' Yahw& passed by.' The noble
declaration of Yahwe's ethical nature in 34 6 3 belongs
to a redactor ; as Battershy has noticed, it is the ex-
pression of a school of religious thought later and wiser
than the Yahwist's (Ox$ Hex. 2 134).
According to E, after the due preliminaries, there
was a great thunderstorm, and Moses brought the
people to the foot of the mountain to meet God.
Affrighted at the storm and the ' trumpet,' the people
fled from the mountain, and Moses alone drew near to
the darkness in which God was. The words spoken
were, as the text now stands, the famous Decalogue
adopted by the Church (see D ECALOGUE ). The prob-
ability, however, is that E's original Decalogne (if the
number ten may be assumed 6 ) is to be found in the
cultus laws (2022-26 2 2 2 9 - 3 1 23 l o r 9 [ 2 0 - 3 3 ] ) .
After reporting the words of God to the elders, Moses,
attended by Joshua, again ascends the mountain, and
remains there forty days and forty nights, during which
time, it is probable, he has received instruction in
the 'judgments' or decisions (mishppd(im) in 21 I
2216. Finally he receives the t w o tables of stone, on
which the fundamental words of God have been written
by the divine hand.' (The story of the G OLDEN C A LF
[q...] may be passed over.*) An altar is erected, and
burnt offerings and peace offerings are offered. T h e
people are besprinkled with the ' blood of the covenant '
( 2 4 8 ; see C O V E N AN T , 5 5 , end), so that, on the basis
of their promise of obedience, their communion with the
deity is assured.
According to D, the sole foundation and contents of the
covenant a t Horeb was the (expanded) Decalogue.
(MASRAH,F, 3, end) : now iUeri(b)baal is one of the many distor-
tions Of Jerahmeel (see M E P H I B O S H E T H ) .
1 Prohahly Ex. 18 contains some elements from J's arallel
account which KJE has worked into E's narrative. go Di.,
Bacon (Trip. Trad., 1894), Carpenter-Battersby (2 108).
2 Moses then is the sheikh of his clan. Presumably the place
of judgment is the sanctuary of Yahwk, near Horeb. According
to Judg.4rr (cp Nu. 1029-32, J), the father-in-law of Moses ac-
companied Israel to the Promised Land. C p the statement
ab?;t my.
J The number ten is only probable.
4 So J's part of 334. The trouble was caused by the prospect
of going to a distance from the god of Sinai, and as a consolation
the ornaments are probahly to he devoted to the decoration of
the sacred tent and of the Ark. See Dilhnann and Baentsch
ad lac.
5 C p the pillar of cloud and fire (Ex.1321).
6 For Wellhausen's reconstruction see D ECALOGUE , 8 5.
7 See Baentcch on Ex.24 12 but cp 0.rJ Hex., adZoc. (2 119).
8 The allusion to the goldin calves (or calf?-see SHECHEM) ' God has mercy,' they had.
of Jeroboam is unmistakable.
32'3
MOSES
According to P, the glory of Yahwe was for six days hidden
in a cloud on the top of Sinai. On the seventh day Moses was
called into the cloud (Ex.24 156-18a) where he received instruc-
tions as to the tabernacle and its furkture, the priests and their
vestments the altar of incense, etc. (25 1-31 17 6). There Moses
received 6, two 'tables of the testimony' (see A R K S 3); his
face shone so that he veiled it (cp H ORN). T h e tabe;nacle was
eagerly constructed, furnished, and sanctified. Aaron and his
sons were consecrated as priests (Nadah and Abihu can he
passed over). From time to time the various laws of the Book
of Leviticus were communicated.
What is the element of historical truth, whether large
or small, which forms the kernel of these various narra-
14. Historical tfves? Here as elsewhere in the primi-
element.
tive story the object of the narrators is,
' not to relate what actually occurred,
but to shape traditions of the past for the good of the
present.'l If it was really a primitive tradition that,
Israelitish tribes left the Egyptian territory and went to
the land of the Kenites, where their conductors had
long been settled, it stands to reason that the new-comers
would have to adopt the religion of the Kenites. In
any case the M&-clan and the clans which gathered
round it from whatever quarter must have taken this
step.2 The ' pomp and circumstance' o f the so-called
' covenant ' was unnecessary. What may have occurred
is described in a passage which is one of the most
antique portions of the narrative of J E (Ex. 18x2, E):-
'And Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, took a burnt offering and
sacrifices for God ; and Aaron and all the elders of Israel came
to hold the sacred meal before God' ( = a t the sanctuary).
Jethro (or perhaps Jethru), the priest of 'Midian'
(Musri) is about to bring his visit to Moses to an end
(1827). Before he does so, he offers sacrifices to Yahw&
his God, and invites the representatives of Israel to assist
at the ceremony and the feast. Before they could do
this, the Israelite clans must have been solemnly incor-
porated with Yahwk's people. This incorporation is
now solemnly recognised by Jethro. It is a sacrifice of
initiation.3
May we venture to say that there was already an
essential difference between the religion of the Kenites
and that of the new worshippers of Yahwe? There
was-if we may assume that in some wonderful way,
explicable only as an intervention of Yahwe, certain
newly arrived Israelites had been delivered from the
very jaws of death.4 If, however, we cannot venture
to assume this, the origin of the difference which subse-
quently existed between the Yahwism of the Israelites
and that cf any other people which recognised a god
named Y a h d must be referred to some later period.
It may be noticed, however, that even critics who as
regards the story of the yam szqh may be called relatively
conservative, distinctly hold that the original Yahwism
of the Israelites had no ethical character. All that they
can say is that the claim upon Israel's fidelity constituted
by YahwB's great mercy at the Red Sea had an ethical
character, and that the desire to satisfy this claim was
a potent impulse to the gradual moralisation of Israel's
religion.
It has been pointed out already that the sacred
mountain must have been at no great distance from
Kadesh-;.e., the southern Kadesh called Kadesh-
barnea or rather (see NEGEB, 2) Kadesh-jerahmeel.
1 Guthe G V I q .
2 ' A tribe that'changes its seats changes its nods' (W. R.
Smith).
3 Perhaps as Budde (Keligion of Zsrael to the Exile, 23)
remarks, this'is the reason why Moses is not mentioned as taking
part in the sacrifice.
4 ' The Kenites served their god because they knew no better:
because he was of their blood-kindred, and had grown up in in-
.
separable union with them. . . Hut Israel served Yahwt because
H e had kept his word : because H e had won Israel a s his osies
sion by an inestimable benefit' (i6id. 3 5 J ) . But can we {e sur;
that the Kenitec had experienced no divine mercies which
awakened the same ethical impulse as the deliverance a t the
Red Sea (ex hUp.) awakened in the Israelites? If the tribal
name ' Jerahmeel ' was interpreted hy the Jerahmeelites to mean
But it would be very unsafe to lay
stress upon this.
3214
 MOSES
It was in the neighbourhood of this mountain that the
new Yahwb-worshippers settled. W e therefore set aside
the notion of a long journey from Sinai or Horeb to
Kadesh, and at the same time that of the early con-
struction of a surrogate for the mountain shrine of
Yahwi (the Ark). As long as the clans or tribes
remained within easy distance of God's mountain, the
need of a portable sanctuary could not have been felt.
I t was when they began to push forward into new
territories (perhaps even three days' journey,' Nu. 1033,
would disquiet them) that this want would begin to he
noticed. Whether the construction of the Ark was
a n Israelitish idea, or due to imitation of the Kenites or
Miyites, we cannot say ; the Hebrew narrator had not
a historical object in ascribing it to a divine revelation
to Moses. At any rate, the idea of Renan and Guthe
that the Ark of the Israelites was suggested by Egyptian
prototypes is not plausible, the connections of Moses
being not Egyptian, but Arabian.
If we add that we also dismiss certain traditional
stories relative to the journey from Sinai to Kadesh
15. Meribah, ( S e e KIBROTH-HATTAAVAH, M ANNA ,
Dathan; QUAILS, M ERIBAH ), it is only from the
of view of students of the early
lLaron and point
lyIiriam. history. There is something to learn
from each of these traditions, and the
picture of the great leader as it was painted by the later
narrators possesses a special interest of its own. Whether
'very meek' is what E meant to say in Nu. 123 may
be doubted (cp P OOR, I ) ; but certainly hpporo-
@bpquev (Dt. 131 d ; Acts 1318)may fitly describe thc
Leader's uniform gentleness and love towards his people
(see especially the sublime as well as beautiful passage,
Ex. 3232). P. it is true, reports a n exception to this at
Meribah, where, in his impatience, Moses exclaims to
the assembly of Israel, ' Hear now, ye rebels' (Nu.
20x0); but it may reasonably be doubted whether P
has accurately .~ reproduced the tradition which had
reached him.
The reason for doubting is a5 follows :-In Gen. 33 19 3 4 s
5Nnni* is, we believe, miswritten iinn (one of the many distor-
tions of this ethnic). This suggests the possibility that oqnn
in @'?bg N p p W (Nu. 20 I O ) may have been corrupted out ofan
indistinctly written p$Nnny. It is prohable that Jerahmeelites
(Kenites) accompanied the Israelites from Kadesh. Now the
rock of Meribah (=Kadesh-jerahmeel?) was their own rock.
The original story may have traced the sacred fountain of
Kadesh to a stroke on the rock given by the staff of Moses. In
this story Moses prohahly addressed the Jerahmeelites (NJ-iunv
&nn>*). The mistaken reading ' y e rebels ' (n*inn)prohably
led t o a recast of the tradition. Cp, however, MASSAH AND
MERIBAH.
Certainly one whom ' YahwB knew face to face' (Dt.
3410) could not have the ordinary human weaknesses.
Nor do we find that Moses was wanting in mercifulness
even under great provocation (see Nu. 1213 [E], I622
[PI). The narratives as we have them represent Moses
and his opponents as individuals. It is very possible,
however, that relations of clans are symbolised by these
personal narratives. The Reubenites ( = Ddthan and
Abiram) may have resented the superiority of the M 6 3
clan on the ground that Reuben and Levi were equally
descended from Leah, and the clans of ' Miriam' and
of ' Aaron may have become jealous of the prosperity
of the kindred clan of Ma% T o go farther than this
and conjecture (with Guthe, GZ'lz125) that Moses, as
well as Joshua, belonged to the tribe of Joseph, which
traditionally derived its origin from Rachel, seems un-
wise. Indeed, the supposed connection of Joshua with
Ephraim is probably due to a later misapprehension.
See JOSHUA.
With the settlement of the confederated clans of Israel
16. Death in Kadesh and its neighbourhood the story
ofMoses. of Moses ought, one would have thought,
to have ended. It is not at all certain that
it did not once d o so, and that the mountain from
1'It is the most probable thing in the world that actual history
underlies this representation ' (Budde, Rel. of Isr. 82).
32'5
MOSES
which, according to tradition, he surveyed the land
which was about to be occupied. was not in MuSri
rather than in Moab (another case of the confusion of
iim and x~in). T h e reason of this statement is as
follows :-When the Israelites, unaware that YahwB's
power extended beyond Kadesh, murmured a t the
report of the spies, and talked of returning into Egypt,
Yahwk in his wrath threatened to destroy them, and to
make Moses ( L e . , the Moses-clan) into ' a nation
greater and mightier than they' (Nu. 14 12). Ultimately,
we are told, YahwB decided that only Caleb, who was
of another spirit,' should, with his posterity, possess
the land. This certainly points forward to the occupa-
tion of Hebron, or perhaps rather Rehoboth,z by the
Calebites (see C'ALEB). Theoretically, then, Moses
should henceforth have disappeared, and it is very
possible that the primitive tradition made him at this
point surrender his authority to Joshua (=Abi-sheba
or Eli-sheba [?I), and patiently wait for his approaching
end.
I t is true, the tradition in its present form gives
Moses still some opportunities of guiding and directing
l,. Balak. Israel. 'The episode of Balaam the
Moses-cl&
soothsayer and Balak the Moabite king
at Zarephath. comes into the existing biography of
Moses. I t is very probable, however,
that the original story of Balaam and Balak was rather
different from that which our text presents. Balak is
called a ' son of ZIPPOR' (q.v.) ; in our view, the original
phrase was most probably ' son of Zarephath.' Balaam
on the other hand dwelt, not a t a doubtful Pethor on
the Euphrates, but a t Rehoboth by the River of MiSrim.
See REHOROTH. I t is possible that, according to one
tradition, the MiSrites grew tired of the Israelites, and
that Balak their king sought the aid of a great prophet
or diviner-a worshipper of YahwB-against his un-
welcome visitors. I t may have been at this period,
according to the early tradition, that Moses ( L e . , the
Moses-clan) gained possession of Zarephath. Two
inconsistent stories respecting the occupation of this
place were probably current, corresponding to the
inconsistent narratives of the capture of REHOBOTH
[ q . ~ . ] . One represented Zephath or Zarephath as won
by force (Judg. 1 1 7 ) , the other as acquired by a n
amicable compact (Gen. 3318, revised text ; Ex. 221).
At any rate we may (or must) suppose that the wander-
ing Levites, who a t a later time sought employment from
Israelitish families as priests of YahwB (this is vividly
brought before us in Judg. 1 7 7 - 1 3 ) , had Zarephath for
their centre. One part of the Moses-clan therefore (to
which clan, be it noted, the Levite of Judg. 17 f.
belonged) remained in Zarephath, while another part
accompanied other clans in expeditions of conquest,
precisely as we learn from Judg. 116 that Judah was
accompanied in one of its campaigns by a branch of
the Kenites. Representatives of the Moses-clan would
naturally guard the portable sanctuary (the ark), which
was an inseparable accompaniment of the leading
Israelite clans so soon as they journeyed far from
Kadesh. It was from these that the reputation of the
Levites as a warlike tribe (Gen. 34 Ex. 3226-28) must
have been derived.
The statement (Dt. 224-3 17) that Israel under Moses
conquered the territory of Sihon and Og, the two
18. Conqaest Amorite kings E. of the Jordan, and
that it was allotted to certain Israelitish
of cushan. trihes seems to he due to a misunder-
...-.-. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~
standing of the early tradition (see OG, SIHON). All
that any form of the primitive legend knew of was the
conquest of the Jerahmeelite or Arabian land of Cush,
and the Jericho spoken of in Josh. 2-6 was really some
important Jerahmeelite city, such as Zarephath or
1 See ESCHATOLOGY col. 1342 midway.
2 There are traces &an early &adition that the land 'flowing
with milk and honey,' explored by the spies, was to the S. of
the Negeb of Judah (see NEGEB, $ 7). Cp PARADISE.
32s6
 MOSES
HalCisah.' The story in Josh.2-6 makes Joshua the
leader of Israel when Jericho ' (Jerahmeel) was taken.
'This is surely the correct traditional view. * Moses '
took no part in any migration from Arabia. T o tread
the land of promise was denied him ; this is distinctly
stated in the traditions. The editors could not alter-
they could but attempt to explain this fact. It was ' on
your (Israel's) account,' said some (Dt. 1 3 7 ij26) ; it
was because of something wrong in the conduct of
Moses, said others (Nu. 20612 Dt. 3251 Ps. 1 0 6 3 3 ) . Cp
MASSAHAN D MERIBAH. The true reason, however,
was forgotten. It was because the Moses-clan was the
clan of YahwP, and YahwB, as late as the time of Elijah,
was the God of Horeb. At least a part of the Moses-
clan, as we saw just now, probably remained at
Zarephath.
It thus becomes probable that, in the primitive
tradition, Moses, Aaron, and Miriam ' the prophetess '
(Ex. 1520, E ) passed away as individuals
19. Moses
and Elijah. in the same region : Miriam at Kadesh
(Nu. 2011, Aaron either at Moserah (Dt.
1 0 6 ) , or at Mount Hor ( N u . 2 0 2 8 3 3 3 8 ) , and Moses on
the top of ' the Pisgah.'
The Pisgah-view enjoyed by Moses has been con-
sidered elsewhere (see P ISGAH ). W e have only to add
that, according to Dt. 346, ' n o one knows of his
sepulchre unto this day. ' The Jewish comment on this
is that this was designed in order that the Israelites
might not raise a sanctuary at the grave of Moses, or
because no sepulchre could be worthy of him. But the
question is whether some primitive story which would
account better for the circumstance has not been
omitted. Moses and Elijah are two parallel heroes
(cp Mal. 4 4 5 , with Lk.930). and are both connected
with Zarephath and with Horeb.3 In the story of
Elijah's decease it is said that fifty men were sent to
find Elijah, but in vam, because he had gone up in a
whirlwind, accompanied by chariots and horses of fire,
into heaven. It appears likely that a similar tale was
originally told of Moses4 It would be a fitting close
to the career of the prophet of YahwP, who was origin-
ally known as the storm-god. W e may add that this
view is at least analogous to the early Christian belief
in a spiritual assumption of the great legislator.5
I t has been said of Elijah that his end corresponds with
singular exactness to his beginning, that he appears in the history
of Israel like a meteor, and disappears as mysteriously. The
same thing may perhaps be said of Moses, for no one will say
that the story of the 'ark of bulrushes' is more historical than
that of the great prophet's burial. Primitive tradition knew
nothing either as to his birth or a s to his death, and altogether
was too scanty to please posterity. Hence speculation busied
itself in filling up the gap. See especially Josephus (Ant. 2 9
and I O ; c. A j . 1z 6 J ) and Philo(Vit. Moysis). On the Midrash
called the Petirath M 6 G 6 see Zunz, Goitesdienstl. Vortr&-~(Z)
154 ; for the Assumjtion of Moses, see Charles's edition (1897):
especially the appendix on the original Assumption (cp APOCA-
LYPTIC, $5 59); on later legends in general, see Eeer, Leben
Moses nach A u f a s s u q d m ~ 2 d Sage . (1863) and on the
legendary graves of Moses and Aaron, Goldiiher, Ne6rm
Mythlogy, &If:
Of referelices to Moses in the O T outside of the
Hexateuch specially deserving attention we may notice
Ps.996, ' Moses and Aaron among his priests' ; Is. 63 12,
'that caused his glorious arm to go at the right hand
of Moses ' ; Jer. 15 I , ' though Moses and Samuel stood
1 Hardly Kadesh, a s suggested in JERICHO 5 2. Halfisah
(Ziklag) was possibly the city conquered by the banites,.accdrd-
ing to Judg. 1827-29. See ZIKLAG.
MOSERAH[g.z-.]=Mi9gur (Mngri). H o r and ' t h e Pisgah'
both come, the present writer think:: from Jerahmeel. T h e
current views are scarcely tenable. See N ERO, M OUNT .
3 According tn Renan, ' Le g k n t du Sinai parait une creation
de l'kole d'klie. Les deux legendes se compenktrent. &lie a
dans le Horeb des visions qui ont avec celles de Morse a u meme
lieu les plus grandes ressemblances' (Histoire, 2 zss).
4 Winckler's theory that Moses is ' t h e returning Tammuz
the sun of spring and summer ' ( G I 2 ag 284) implies too great
confidence in the mythological key to ancient legends.
See Clem.Alex. Strom. 6 15, quoted by Charles, Assump-
tion of M o s e s 107.
6 A paralle'l Midrash relative to the decease of Aaron is
probably later (Zunz).
32'7
MOSES
before m e ' ; Mic. 6 4 . ' I sent before thee Moses and
Aaron and Miriam '; Mal. 44, ' remember
20. Other the law of Moses my servant ' ; to which
references
we may add the title of Ps. 90, ' A prayer
to lYIoses. of Moses the man of God.' In some
of these passages the text is doubtful. It is not
likely, for instance, that Moses would have been called
a priest ; for i,Jnjg: we should probably read i?'n?, ' his
T-:
chosen ones' (cp 10623, said of Moses). Nor is it
probable that Aaron and Miriam were given a share of
the leadership specially belonging to Moses (see M ICAH ,
§ 3 [f.], I ) . T h e title of Ps. 90 will be referred to else-
where (P SALMS [BOOK], § 26 [17]).
The references in the N T are comparatively less
important, because, where not simple abstracts of 01'
statements, they merely reproduce late Jewish traditions.
T h e extraordinary beauty of Moses (Acts i 20 ; cp Heb.
11 2 3 ) reminds us of Jos. Ant. ii. 9 7 (pop+$ BE^). In
Acts722 we have allusions to the tradition of Moses
acquaintance with Egyptian magic arts, and of his
warlike prowess (see below, § 2 1 ) .
In 2). 23 7 € U U f p a K O v r a & ) s xp6voc may he illustrated by
Bey. ?ahha, par. 100 (on G m . 1 14), ' Moses stayed in the palace
of Pharaoh forty years, and in Midian iorty years, and for forty
years he ministered to the Israelites..' In v. 2 2 and in vv. 38, 5 3
we find a reference to the tradition that the law was proclaimed
through the ministry of angels (cp @, Dt. 33 2 Gal. 3 19 Heh. 2 2 ,
with I)el.'s note). On 2 Tim. 38f: see J A N N E ANSD JAMBRES,
and on Jude g see APOCALYI'TIC, 5 59.
W e referred just now to a statement in the speech of
Stephen (Acts 7 2 2 ) relative to Moses as a warrior.
21. Hellenistic This may refer to such stories as that
of the Ethiopian war (Jos. A n t . ii. 10 ;
and lyIoham-
medm legends. Artapanus in Eus. Prqzj. Et!. 927 ; see
H ISTORICAL LITERA'WRE, 5 19, iii.,
col. 2090) ; which some considered to be based on the
reference in Nu. 121 to Moses' Cushite wife, whilst
Wiedemanii (OLZ,May, 1900, pp. 1 7 3 5 ) conjectures
that some tradition of Mesui. who held the office of
prince of Cush, under Ranieses 11. and his successor
Me(r)neptab (cp Ebers, Durch Gosen, 526) may have
reached later writers through one of the many Egyptian
legendary tales, and have had some share in the forma-
tion of the story. This latter theory. however, pre-
supposes the Egyptian origin of the name Moses.
The references to Moses in the Koran are many: they
illustrate the unoriginality of Mohammed who gives us mere
recasts of the biblical narratives, expand& by the help of the
traditions current among the Arabian Jews. The most remark-
able is in Sur. r8 where Moses is brought into connection with
the mysterious pirsonapes el-Hidr (on whom see D ELUGE $ 15
ELIJAH, $3 4) and 'the two-hoked' (Alexander the Great!-se;
HORN).
From all these legends we turn back with renewed
interest to the old biblical narratives, and our sympathy
22. Important is great with those who (like Giese-
positive truth brecht l ) feel compelled to treat Moses
remaining. as to some extent a historical personage
a s a protest against a meagre evolu-
tionary view of Jewish religion. If it was not an Exodus
from an Egyptian ' house of servants ' that awakened
the sense of an almighty and all-righteous protector of
Israel, and if it was not through Moses that the meaning
of the event was brought home to the people, what
other deliverance and what other deliverer are we to set
in their place? There are no great heroes of popular
tradition to whom we can point but Samuel and Elijah.
T h e former is brought into connection with the war
with the Philistines, which certainly appears to have
stirred up religious fervom in no slight degree ; the
other, with the persecution of YahwB-worshippers by
Ahab. Our knowledge, however, respecting these
personages is very slight. Samuel and Elijah have
apparently both been much idealised, and sober history
cannot venture to admit that Ahab really destroyed the
altars of Yahwe and slew his prophets. The fact,
1 Die GeschichrilicAKeit des Sinai-bundes (rqm).
Cp Budde, h'eiig,on of IsraeZ, IOI.
3 c p Kuenen, ReZigion of Israel, 1361.
32x8
 MOSOLLAM
however, need not be doubted that through the chequered
experiences of the national history the representatives
of prophetism arrived at the apprehension of a truth
which had hitherto been practically unknown, viz., that
to ensure prosperity it was not enough to worship
Yahwe alone; his one immutable requirement was
righteousness. Is it not reward enough to the critical
student to have made this historically plain, and so to
have rescued all that was indispensable in the imagina-
tive popular biography of the ideal l man of God ' ?
T. K. C .
MOSOLLAM (,MOCOAAAMOC [BA]), I Esd. 914 =
Ezra 1015, MESHULLAM, SI.
MOSOLLAMON ( MOCOAAAMON [A]), I Esd. 844 AV,
RV Mosollamus = Ezra 8 16, M ESHULLAM, IO.
MOTH ( ~ y C; H C . ~ but in Is.518 XPONOC, cp
W O RM ; tinea: Job419 1328 2718 P s . 3 9 1 ~[II] Is.509 5 1 8
Hos. 5 1 2 Ion 6 see S PIDER ad&] Ecclus. 1 9 3 [cp 81 42 '3
Bar. 6 Ia [8 @ ~ W ~ ~ T WMt.V ] 6 ~ g f :Lk: 1233).
The moth naturally occurred t o Hebrew writers in
search of a symbol for the perishableness of man and
his possessions. It need hardly be remarked that there
are various species of the genus Tinea, which are de-
structive of woollen fabrics and of furs. W e cannot
select any one of these as more likely than the rest to
represent the biblical moth.
Nor need we make any special reference to biblical passages,
except to those in which the moth appears only through a cor-
ruption of the text, tti?, ' moth,' being really a relic, in one place
(Job 13 28)of $pil, 'caterpillar'(see LOCUST), in others of r?"??y,
'spider' (see S PIDER).
I. Joh 27 18a where EV following MT brings the house of
the rich man ido some not)very clear connkction with the moth.
Accepting this, prosaic persons have imagined an allusion either
to the cases made of leaves etc., in which caterpillars of certain
species shelter themselves,' or to the cocoons which they spin
before pupating. The corruption of uq3y into wy is, however,
so easy that we need not defend the traditional reading at the
cost of such an unnatural conjecture (see Merx, Budde, Duhm).
On the other hand, we may safely restore the moth in Job
27 Ixb.2 The whole verse should probably run thus, ' He builds
his house as the spider; he has laid up his store for the moth
("fk a'&!? 4$@
2. On Ps. 39 I I [12] we niay refer to what is said elsewhere
(OWL). The ordinary view that the psalmist compares the
divine chastisements to the operations of a moth (cp Hos.
5 12) has serious exegetical difficulties. In two passages, how-
ever, the moth may on grounds of textual criticism be restored
(Is. 516 Ps. 57 20 ; Che. SBOT,ad Zoc., and Ps.(Z)).
T. K. C.
MOTHER (DH). A very few points of Hebrew usage
need be here indicated ; for further information see the
related articles D AUGHTER , SON, and especially F AMILY,
K INSHIP, and M ARRIAGE (with reference to the so-
called Matriarchate or Mutterrecht). When precision
was necessary, the fact of uterine brotherhood was
expressed by such 3 phrase as ' his mother's son ' (Gen.
43-29 : c p Judg. 8 19) and a stepmother was distingiished
from the womb-mother by the name of ' father's wife'
(Lev. 188). The word ' mother' could also of course
be used widely for ' ancestress ' (Gen. 320 ; on I K. 15 IO
see M AACHAH ), also for the people personified (Is. 50 I
Jer. ~ O I Z ) ,and consequently, in the symbolic language
of ethnic genealogies, for one of the tribes or raccs
of which a composite population was composed (cp also
G ENEALOGIES i., I ). Hence in Ezek. 163 the mother
of Jerusalem is called ' a Hittite' (see, however,
R EHOBOTH), thus suggesting one of the elements in
the early population of Jerusalem. In Judg. 5 7
Deborah is called ' a mother in Israel,' which may
either mean ' a benefactress ' (cp ' father,' Job 29 16) or
be regarded as an indication that ' Deborah ' (but cp
O PHRAH ) was the name of a town or a clan. In z S.
1 m j s also represents OD, in Is. 51 x and 22> in Prov. 14 30 ;
cp WORM.
2 This has been overlooked by the critics. @ gives &p&xvq
beside 6 i . c ;~ Pesh., too, implies w'22y (instead of.)!it 8 is
nearer the true text than either MT or Pesh.
3219
MOURNING CUSTOMS
20 19, a t any rate, the phrase ' a city and a mother in
Israel ' means ' a prominent, influential city' (65,m 5 A w
K Q ~ p ~ r p 6 a o A i v ) . In the language of strong emotion
ShGl can be called a 'mother' (Job 1216, cp 1714).
The ' parting of the way' (Ezek. 21 21 [26]) is in the
Hebrew 'the mother of the way '-a transparent symbolic
phrase.
MOUNT, MOUNTAIN (77). Where AV has 'mount'
RV has a marked preference for 'mountain' or 'hill-country '-
e . p , ' hill-country of qphraim' (Josh. 19 50 20 7), ' mountain of
?lead' (Gen. 31 ZI), hill-country of Naphtali' (Josh. 207)
hill-country of Judah' (ib.), though 'mount Seir' is retained:
See EPHRAIM, etc.
T h e uncertainty whether ' mountain ' means a single
eminence or a mountain range or district must be always
borne in mind, both in the 01'and in the NT. This
affects the possibility of the identification of the ' Mount
of the Beatitudes' (Mt. 51) and the Mountain of the
Transfiguration (Mt. and Mk. give els ( i p s fi$qXbv, but
Lk. 928 E ~ S~b ( i p s ) . Cp Weiss on Mt. 51. For phrases
into which ' mount ' or ' mountain ' enters, see COKCRE-
GATION, M OUNT OF ; C HERUB , 5 2, and S INAI (Horeb.
'mountain of G o d ' ) ; C OPPER, § 5 ('mountains of
brass ') ; D ESTRUCTION [Mouwr OF].
Mountains are referred to as monuments of the might
of the Creator (Ps.656 [7]; c p Is. 4012) ; hence, accord-
ing to most, they are called ' the mountains of God'
(Ps. 366 [7] ; c p ' the trees of Yahwk,' Ps. 104 16). They
were, as Job 157 and Prov. 825 appear to state, the
earliest created objects ; so ancient is their date that to
express G o d s everlastingness in the past a psalmist
declares that God existed even 'before the hills were
brought forth' (Ps. 902). When God touches them,
they smoke (Ps. 10432 1445); when he appears, they
melt like wax (Judg. 55 Ps. 975 Is. 641 [63198] Mi. 14).
or skip like lambs (Ps. 1144 6). They shudder a t his
judgmeuts (Ps. 187 [8] Mi. 6 1 5 ) ; but they rejoice when
Israel's redemption draws nigh (Ps. 988 Is. 4423 4913
55 12).
Mountains are also symbols of kingdoms-e.g., of
Israel (Ezek. 1 7 2 3 2O40), and especially of the Divine
kingdom (Dan. 235 44) ; the latter representation seems
to have mythological affinities (cp C ONGREGATION
[M OUNT OF]). In Jer. 51 25 Babylon is called a ' destroy-
ing mountain ' (see DESTRUCTIOK [M OUNT OF]) ; hut in
Is. 41 15 the mountains which Israel is to ' thresh,' and
in Zech. 4 7 the ' mountain' which is to become a plain '
before Zerubbabel, are probably symbolic terms for
obstacles to the activity of the people of God. With
the former passage cp Is.404; with the latter, Mt.
1720 2121 I Cor. 132.
For 'mount,'(r) I , mrqsdb, Is. 293 RV 'fort,' see F ORT ;
:
?
and for (2) niyb, siiiclrih, 2 S. 20x5 etc. (AV sometimes 'bank'),
see S IEGE. For M O ~ ~ Ofh God l (Ezek. 28 I.+), see C ONGRE-
GATION, M OUNT O F .
MOURNING CUSTOMS. Both before and after
the burial, sorrowing for the departed found expression
in remarkable customs which, in part a t least, Israel had
in common with other nations.
One of the most usual was that of rending the
garments ( z S. 111 331 etc.), a practice afterwards
1, Biblical weakened to a conventional tearing of the
dress at the breast for a h a n d s breadth.
references' Instead of the usual materials sackcloth'
(?e) was worn (2 S. 21 IO Is. 153). This was a rough
garment of goat-hair or camel-hair, in form somewhat
resembling a modern shirt, but without long sleeves;
originally, perhaps, it was merely a body-cloth like the
' i h r i m of the Arabs (to which we shall refer again, 2).
T h e mourners went bareheaded and barefoot (Ezek.
24 17 z S. 153o), or covered the head, or at least the
beard (Ezek. 2417 Jer. 143 z S . 1530), or laid the hand
upon the head ( 2 S. 13 19) ; they sat in dust and ashes,
and sprinkled themselves (Is. 326 471 Job28), and
especially their heads, with these (Josh. 7 6 z S. 1 z etc. ).
Various mutilations also were practised (Jer. 166 415
3220
 MOURNING CUSTOMS
OF THE FLESH, 5 I).
4 7 5 etc. ; see C UTTINGS It was
also the custom to fast for the dead (I S. 31 13 2 S. 335) ;
after sundown the fasting was closed (or, if the fasting
lasted several days, broken) by a funeral feast (Hos. 94
2 S. 3 35 Jer. 167 Ezek. 2417 2 2 ) ; cp PASTING. Food
was placed upon the grave (Dt.2614). Tobit indeed
(Tob. 417) was commanded to place food only upon
the grave of the righteous ; the ungodly were not to be
so kindly treated ; the son of Sirach, however, ridiculed
this custom altogether : ‘ of what use,’ he asks, e is such
an offering to a spirit?’ ‘ Like dainties to a closed
mouth are offerings laid on the grave’ (Ecclus. 3018).
T h e burning of spices as practised by the nobles In
later times (Jer. 34 5 2 Ch. 16 14 21 19) is also to be
regarded as a form of offering to the dead. T h e
customary lament for the dead was certainly more than
a natural expression of sorrow. Besides the women of
the house, who sat weeping upon the ground, profes-
sional women mourners were called in. Probably to
some fixed melody, the peculiarly rhythmical dirge
(n1.p) was sung (cp L AMENTATION , P OETICAL L ITERA -
TURE, § 4 [I]). Zech. 1210-14 makes for the view that
the lament for the dead was a religious ceremony con-
ducted under rules handed down by tradition. The dirge
might be acconipanied by flutes (Jer. 4836; 10s.
Bjiii. 95). Cp MUSIC,5 4a.
Several of these customs (especially that of wearing
mourning) may be accounted for simply as being ex-
pressive of grief, and the explanation
2. origin
these of of their prohibition on the other hand
cuetoms.
(Lev.1928215f.; D t . 1 4 1 5 ) hasbeen
sought in the supposition that as wild excesses they
were not pleasing to YahwB. I n the majority of cases,
however, this interpretation of the practices in question
can hardly be allowed. How could mutilation of the
person, shaving of the head, cutting off the beard, come
to be expressive of sorrow? That this was not the light
in which they were viewed by the Law is shown by the
reason given for their prohibition-viz., that they were
sacrilegious, nnbefitting Israel, the people of YahwB,
and in every respect defiling (Lev. 215). I n point of
fact they were forbidden as being ceremonies originally
occurring in the worship of heathen gods. This con-
clusion is abundantly proved by the offerings to the
dead. Such are even now brought by the Bedouins.
Very similar is the custom still in vogue among civilised
races of placing food and drink on the grave, as to the
origin of which there can be no doubt. Just as in the
last case the offering to the dead has been changed into
a burial feast, so the burial repast grew out of a sacrifice.
The text of Jer. 167 is in all probability corrupt ; but
the statement of the offerer of the tithe (Dt. 26 14), that
none of it has been given to the dead, can only refer to
an offering to the dead or a funeral feast, whilst the
latter, again, is shown to be of the nature of a sacrifice
to the dead by the fact that the funeral bread is impure
and contaminating (Hos. 94). In agreement with this
we find that with many nations, particularly the ancient
Greeks, sacrifices to the dead occurred in connection
with funeral feasts. Cutting the body with knives is
mentioned in I K. 1828 as a religious ceremony.
Cutting off the hair of the head and the beard cor-
responds to a similar cnstom among the Greeks, who
laid their hair with the dead in the grave (IZiaiad, 23135).
T h e shaving of the head as a religious ceremony was
also in use among the ancient Arabs, perhaps as a sign
of devotion to the service of God.’ It is a suggestive
conjecture of W . R. Smith2 that the dust which was
strewn upon the head was taken from the grave, and
the ashes from the funeral fires ( z Ch. 16 14 21 19). It
is chiefly among races having a form of worship of the
dead that we find a dirge sung according to fixed forms.
The shades of the departed, to whom the future was
known (ik, *8p),were either consulted at the grave
1 Wellh. A r . Heid.P) 118.
2 RcL Sem. 413; so Schwally, Das Le& nach dem Tode, 15.
3221
MOUSE
(Is. 654) or summoned through exorcists (Is. 819 29,
I S. 28). Covering probably takes the place of cutting
the beard as a form of diminished severity. That
mourning clothes have their origin in some religious
ceremony seems likely; cp the religious habit ’ibrdm
worn by the Muslim pilgrims in the sacred precinct of
Mecca. However, the effort to trace back all these
customs to a religious origin seems unlikely to succeed.
J. G. Frazer (journ. of thc Anfhrop. Inst. 15, 1 6 4 8 , 1885)
explains a large proportion of the mourning customs of various
peoples as typifying a complete renunciation of the spirit of the
departed. Mutilation of the body and the wearing of special
niourning apparel were, he thinks, originally meant to render
the survivors unrecognisable by the spirit of the departed if he
should at any time return. For Semitic peoples, however, such
an explanation of mourning customs is impossible. On the
contrary, the aim of the mourner was to maintain his connection
with the dead. So in the old Arabian custom of erecting a tent
on the grave of a venerated person and staying there, or the oft-
recurring a ostrophe to the dead in Arabic elegies: ‘depart
not. The Rebrews located the graves of their family as near
as possible to their homes (I S.25 I Ezek. 43 7 ; and see T OMB ).
See further C UTTINGS , ESCHATOLOGY, 8s p g , L AMENTATION .
Even though the mourning customs owe their origin
to some form of worship of the dead, it does not by
any means follow that the knowledge of this was
retained in later times. It is more probable that, on
the introduction of the religion of Yahwk, the original
meaning was gradually forgotten and a new signification
(as an expression of sorrow) more and more took its
place. Only by some such transformation could the
old customs succeed in maintaining themselves in the
religion of YahwB ; and those of them (mutilations)
which from their nature were most in danger of leading
back to the old conceptions were, accordingly, forbidden
by Deuteronomy and the Priestly Code, as heathen
abominations.
J. L i p r t k D y . Seelenkulf in seinen Beziehungen zur alt-
hbraisc en eliflon, Berlin 1881 . Oort ‘ D e doodenvereering
bij den 1;raelit;n‘ i n ’ T h . T l 5 3 5 5 8 ; Sta.
3. Literature. G I 1 3 8 7 8 ; Schwally Das Leben m c h dem
Tode nach den Vo;steZlungpn des alten
Israel u. dcs/udenfhums, 1892 ; Perles ‘Die Leichenfeierlich-
keiten des nachbihlischen Judenthums’ in Frankel’s M G W j 10
1861, pp. 345-355 376-394 ; Bu. ‘ Das Heb. Klagelied ’ in Z A 7%‘:
1882, pp. 13, 1883, pp. 2993, and in Z D P Y , 1883, pp. 1 8 0 8 ;
F. Heb. Arch., S 23; Now. Heb. Arch. 5s 32, 33; Bender:
Beliefs, etc., connected with Death, Burial, and Mourning,
J p R , 1894.1895; Goldziher, Muh. Stud. 1 z p g p , ‘On Worship
o Dead in Pagan and Mohammedan Arabia . Frazer, Jounr.
Anfhrop.Imt. ofct.Brif.andlreland, 15 n. 1,’1885, pp. 64-100
‘ Oncertain BurialCustomsas illustrativeofthePrimitiveTheor;
of the Soul’ ; Jastmw, Journ. Anrer. Or. SOL.20 1 3 3 8 On the
mourning women in primitive Babylonia, see Maspero, Dawn
of Cia. 684. 1. B.
MOUSE (l??y ; MYC ; mus). Seven species of the
genus Mus found in Palestine are described by
Tristram, and to these may be added many other small
rodents, field-mice, dormice, etc. All these were no
doubt included under the Hebrew term ‘akbZr, and
were regarded by the Jews as unclean. W e hear indeed
of certain persons who ate the mouse ; but this was a
sign of apostasy from Yahwk (Is. 6617). ETidently
these persons regarded the mouse as a sacred animal,
the eating of whose flesh consecrated the eater (see
S ACRIFICE ). The Arabs, too, frequently ate mice.
Arabic writers, when satirising the Bedouins, are wont
to call them mouse-eating’ ; once we even find the
epithet * field-rat-eater ’ justified by a positive statement
that ‘ t h e Arabs of the desert eat field-mice.” The
jerboa is still eaten by the Arabs of the desert, and
the hamster in Northern Syria. Many of the smaller
rodents live on the succulent underground tubers and
bulbs of the desert flora. Three species of the hamster
(Cricetus) are known ; they lay up such large stores of
gram as to cause serious loss to farmers. The jerboa
(Dipus) is remarkable for its ‘ gambols and kangaroo-
like bounds.’
Of the devastation caused by field-mice there is
abundant evidence (see, e.g., Z l i a n , 17 41). Small
votive offerings in the shape of mice have even been
1 Goldziher, MyUoZogy amongfhe Hebrews, 83, n. a (chap. 4),
3222
 MOWINGS
found (see Frazer, Puus. 5 ~ 9 0 and ) ~ it is possible that
the worship of mice (especially white mice) may have
originated not so much from the survival of a mouse-
totem as to propitiate mice in general and to induce
them not to ravage the cornfields (cp Frazer, Puur.
5 2 8 9 3 ) . On the story in I S. 6 and the significance of
the golden mice see EMERODS, P ESTILENCE, H EZEKIAH ,
5 2, n., and A RK , 15.
In Heb. li>!p ACHBOR (q.v.), occurs as a name (cp Phaen.
i>>y, ~ and?
~i-),
i- in Ar. the equivalent, ‘akbar, is applied to
the male Jerboa,l which is borne as a name by an Arabic tribe
the ‘Amr. h. Yarbu‘. Robertson Smith mentions that thd
‘mother’ of this tribe was a lightning-goddess,and so akin to
the divine archer Cozah, who has so many points of resemblance
with Apollo (Kin. 30z,f).
For an original theory as to the meaning of ix-,p (‘mouse ’) in
I S. 6 see Nature, 57 (1898) p. 618 where it is suggested that
the sufferingsof the Philistines we;, caused by the hires of the
Arachnid SoQuga. These spider-like animals can readily be
mistaken for mice. Critically, however, the theory is very weak.
A. E. S.- S. A.C.-T. K. C.
MOWINGS occurs in the expression ‘king’s mowings’
($?m;? ’.I$ ; r a y o Bacihsyc [BAQ] ; tonsionem ye@.).
Am. 7 I . The only certain meaning ofgtz (I!.), however,
is ‘ fleece’ (=an), and both in Am. and in Ps. 726
T.
(where E V gives ‘mown grass’) the text is disputed
(see Locusrs, § 3, and Che. P5.P)). Hoffmann
defends the sense of wool-shearing for giz even here
(Z-4TW3117), but without plausibility (see Nowack
on Am., Lc.). Most scholars find a reference to the
king’s right of cutting the grass in spring before others,
on which see G OVERNMENT, 5 19.
MOZA (R$D, ‘sunrise,’ § 72).
I. ‘ Sou ’ of Caleb b. Hemon by his concubine Ephah ( I Ch.
246, wua [A], -Y [B], pouua [L]). Some locality in Judah is
probably intended ; cp the place-name MOZAH.
2. b. Zimri a descendant of Saul mentioned in a genealogy of
B E N J A M I N (q.?., $ 9, ii. p), I Ch.8365 (pa‘ua [BA; sup M
vestigia appar IUS et litur in B], pwua [L])=I Ch. 942j: (pacrua
IBI, wa-a [NAI woua [Ll).
MOZAH (ny’m;?),a Benjamite locality, grouped
with Mizpah and Chephirah (Josh.1826 [PI, AMWKH
[BI, AMWCA [AI: M A C C A [GI). A Mozah, situated
below Jerusalem, is mentioned m Sukka. 45 ; it was the
place from which willow-branches were fetched for the
Feast of Tabernacles. The Gem2ra adds that it was a
‘colonia ’ ( N ’ I ~ ? ) . Now, on the way to Karyat el-‘Enab, valley is rightly placed near Jerusalem. More probably,
NE. of Jerusalem, we find the two neighbouring places
named respectively Knlsnieh and Bet Mizza (cp Bad. 17).
Buhl (Pal. 167) would identify the latter with the Mozah
of Josh. and of the Mishna. Certainly Kul8nieh is not
the Kulon of 6 ’ s addition to Josh. 1559 (see EMMAUS, midst of the valleys’ (n\Vp).
K U L O N ), When, however, we consider similar cases
of double representation of the same place in P’s lists,
and.notice corniption close by, it seems best to regard
as a corrupt dittogram of narnn, ‘ the Mizpeh
which precedes. See MIZPAH. T. K. C.
MUFFLERS (d???), Is. 3 1st EV, A P E . spangled
ornaments.’ See VEIL.
MULBERRY (MOPON) I Macc. 6 3 4 t , and Mulberry
trees (n?Qp), z S . 5 2 3 5 I Ch.14145, and A V w ,
Ps. 846 [7], where AVmS virtually reads bckd’im( D ’ K 3 3 ) .
At BETHZACHARIAS ( 4 . v . ) the elephants in the Syrian
army were shown ‘the blood of grapes and of mulberries ’
(see E LEPHANT). N o doubt the fruit of the black
mulberry-tree (Morus nigya; MH nm) is meant, the
juice of which suggests an apologue illustrative of Gen.
4 9 in Ber. rubbd, 22. The juiciness of the mulberry
also suggested AV’s rendering of bPkiim (from n21, ‘ to
weep ’) in 2 S. 5 2 3 5 , which is adopted from the Rabbins.
but is a worthless conjecture.
Targum gives the general term ‘ trees ’ (ti:??!) ; B B A (in Ch.),
Aquila in 2 S. 5 23,2 and Vulgate (in S. and Ch.) give, for no
1 So Bochart, Gesenius, and Knobel all understand the 1 x 3 to
he the jerboa. It may he noticed that ‘adaZ, the field-mouse,
occurs also as an Arabic clan-name.
2 ‘ Lectio suspicione nou vacat ’ (Field, 1554).
3223
MULE
good reason, &roc, $yri (i.e., pear-trees), .which, however,
grow only in N. Palestine.
Celsius (11 3 8 f i ) identified the Baku tree, as we may
provisionally call it, with a tree or bush of the same
name (baku’)known to Arabian writers. Mr. M‘Lean
writes, ‘ I t is, according to Abulfadl, similar to the
bas’am (BaZmmodendron opobulsumum), and grows in
the district round Mecca. I t differed from the balsam
tree in having longer leaves and a larger, rounder fruit.
From it a juice or resin (his language is not clear, but
he connects the distillation with the severance of the
Zeaf) was obtained which was a remedy for toothache. ’
T o this identification (accepted by many, including
Del. Ps.)it is a conclusive objection that no such tree
is known in Palestine. Nor is it easy to see how a tree
which grows in the hot dry valley where Mecca lies,
can have grown in the highland plain of ‘ Rephaim,’
whether we place this near Jerusalem or in the Jerah-
meelite Negeb (see R EPHAIM . VALLEY OF). I t is pos-
sible of course that the same name (the a weeping ’ tree)
may have been borne by some gum-exuding variety of
the acacia. Apparently the trees referred to in 2 S. IC.
were sacred trees, and in the Sinaitic peninsula a t any
rate we know that the seydZ-acacia is often a sacred tree
( H . J. Palmer, Sinai, 39 ; cp Doughty, AY. Des. 1273).
Several species of acacia are found in Palestine (see
SHITTAH TREE). W e might further suppose that
BOCHIM [p.u.] is a popular corruption of bPkd’im
( weeping trees ‘). See also POPLAR.
However, the corruptions suspected elsewhere in thisnarrative
(see REPHAIM, VALLEVOF) suggest caution. The text may be
corrupt. The two narratives in 2 S. 5 17-25 are clearly parallel.
Very possibly for O W 3 2 we should read Dr?Ej
(=Zarephath) of the Jerahmeelites,’ and OW!?? ’ W K R should
be ’n7’ Yl?:, ‘in Perez of the Jerahmeelites.’ This gives
another play on the name Perez or Perazim, for the next words
are, f l p 19 (as read with Gra.), ‘then shalt thou break forth.’
See PEnAziM. The key to the narrative is the theory that the
fighting referred to was for the possession of the Jerahmeelite
cities (see I S. 30 29); the combatants were David‘s men on the
one hand, and the Zarephathites on the other.
The case of Ps. 846 [7] requires separate consideration. Thq
rendering of Baer, Kautzsch, ‘going through the vale of tears,
is supported by all the ancients, but will hardly stand (for
another view see Knnig, 2 a 174). @’s 706 rAau9p&vor points to
O’!>>, Irab-&ik?kim; hal-ddkim might come from Irad-bZkkri’im,
so that the Valley (Plain) of ‘ Rephaim’ might he meant, if that
however, there is a corruption in the text, and for N?&> p p p
we should read nbz?. Bin$; the passage will then rui,
‘Who going through a region of vales drink from a fountain ’
.
(see Che. Ps.(?) ; cp Is. 41 18, ‘ I will open . . fountains in the
T. K . C .
MULE (17.9, $red, H M I O N O C ) . T h e Hebrews do
not seem to have been familiar wlth the mule before the
establishment of the monarchy. Long
1. History. before this, however, mules had been in
use in Egypt and Assyria; their sure-
footedness, hardiness, and endurance making them
handier, and often more valuable than the horse, which
was reserved for military expeditions and wars (see
H ORSE).
Mules are first met with in Asia Minor, and the high-
lands to the N. of Mesopotamia. In Homer they are
associated with the Paphlagonian Enetae (II. 2 872).
and the Mysians (ZZ.24277). The Phoenicians (and
through them doubtless the Hebrews) carried on a trade
in mules with TOGARMAH (Ezek. 2714, om. ?B) ; and
the same region on more than one occasion furnished the
Assyrians with supplies of these animals.
In the OT the mule is first mentioned in the time of
David. It is the animal ridden by the king’s sons ( 2 S.
1329 189 ; the pack-animal is the ass, cp 16 I ) , while for
For I S. 21 7 [SI where Doeg, according to @BAL, was Saul’s
mule-keeper, see DOEG. B again finds an allusion to mules in
~ Neh. 28 where NC.aL(not BA) display the reading O??B> 1pY
by the side of the MT Dq??;r ’w ‘the keeper of the king’s park’
The latter is, of course, cdrrect.
3224
 MUNITION
the king's use.upon state occasions the female animal
seems to be preferred ( I K. 1 3 3 3 ) . Mules were among
Solomon's yearly presents ( I K. 1025 2 Ch. 9 2 4 ) , and
henceforth became widely used. Mules together with
asses, camels, and horses, in large numbers, w-ere
carried off by Sennacherib after his invasion of Judah
(Prism-Znscr. 3 1 8 3 ) . Further references are made to
the use of the mule as a beast of burden ( 2 K.517' cp
Judith 1511),as a baggage animal in w a r (Judith 2 1 7 ) .
and as harnessed to a L ITTER ( p . ~ . ) . The breeding of
mules would be prohibited in post-exilic times by the
law in Lev. 19.9.
The usual name for the mule in Heh. is 117,$&ea', a word of
uncertain origin cp Syr. darnlim 'mule, beast of burden.'
T d i s word lies at the bottom of the mid. Lat.
2. Names. hurdo, 0. Eng. ' hurdown ' (the offspring of the
stallion and a& ; Engl. hinny), and is transferred
from the pilgrim's mule to his staff in the 0. Eng. ' bonrdon'
(cp the diverse meanings of the Span. muleta). For this and
other vicissitudes of th,e word see the New English Dictionary,
S . 'bourdon ' 'burden. It i; interesting to find that Wyclif in
his translation has actually used burdown, burdones, to render
the Heh. ~ q of qz K.~517. Other Hebrew words rendered
' mule ' are OD,:?,hayyPmim, Gen. 36 24 (see ANAH),d??, r i k d ,
Est. S IO 74 and p n n p p Est. 8 IO ; see H ORSE , $ I .
Among other Semltlc terms for ' mule' may be noticed the
Ass. kudinnu (see Muis-Am. with refs.), cp Sjr. kzidanya; and
pare (but according to Jen. /cos. m g f : 'horse'). The Syr.
daglri 'mule ' as also the AT.Jail, are conceivably derived from
pd,+p (of ghocian origin, so Hesych.); from which, in their
turn, come the Lat. mulus(proper1y the offspring of the ass and
mare), and our own ' mule. A. IC.S.--S. A. C.
MUNITION (nTjYg, IS. 3316 EV ; YlyYQ,IS. 297
AV; il?lL'g, Nah. 21 [ z ] EV) ; see FORTRESS, col. 155%
and, for Dan. 1138 AVmg., MAUZZIM.
MUPPIM ( D ' R P ; M&M@EIN [AD]; - E I M [L]), one
of the sons of Benjamin (Gen. 4621). The name seems
to be a corruption from the SHEPHUPHAM of Nu. 2639
(S HUPPIM in I Ch. 712) ; see AHIRAM.
MURDERER, M ANSLAYER. See GOEL; also
&YLWM. and L A W AND J USTICE , § 13.
MURRAIN (Y;?), Ex. 93. SeeDISEASES, COl. 1105,
and cp P LAGUES, THE TEN.
MUSH1 ('gaD,
@? Mosaite ' [5 91 or ' Moses-clan '
I
[~IOSES, 0 21; in Nu.333, 2658, *@an?, the Mushites), a
Levitical (Merarite) family ; Ex. 629 ; Nu. 3 20 33 ; 26 58 ; I Ch.
6 1947 14 321 ; 23 2123 ; 2426 30 (usually opovut[c]r, or, especially
in L, pouu[flr, occasionally poovo[c]r] ; in I Ch. 6 47 [321, B has
pouer). Cp MERARI, GENEALOGIES, i. 0 7.
MUSIC
Rhythm, mel!dy (5 I). Orchestration (0 11).
Instrumentation (s 2). Development of music (5 12).
Percussion (S 3). Character (B 13J).
Wind (I 4J). Christian hymns (0 14, end).
Strings (58 6.~0). Melodies (5 15).
Literature (8 16).
Music is the art of the expression of the feelings
by means of rhythmical and melodious sound. Its
1. Rhythm, origin is lost in the night of antiquity;
but it is safe to assume from a study of
the development of the art among savage
peoples that the first music was a system of rhythmical
intonation. There can be little doubt that melody or
tone-variation in singing was a comparatively late
development from this original rhythm, a sense of
which is inborn in all races. As soon as man reached
a stage of cultivation where he was able to repeat his
experience to his fellows, to give an account of his own
passions or to tell of the heroic deeds of others, the
need must have been felt of a declamatory style, a
method of reciting which would not only impress the
words of a tale on the hearers, but would also enable
1 Dql;3-l$: R g Q 'twomule-loads.' Ass-load (qnn l i p ydpos
bvrr6c) and camel-load ( N h 'm) are used as units of weight in
the erdat Palmyrene tariff; see'lidzbarski, Nord-sem. E j t f .
4653
3225
MUSIC
the reciter himself to remember his theme more easily.
This mnemonic style, which must have been a method
of intonation and emphatic accentuation of the most
important words or phrases of a story, was the
beginning of what we now call rhythm. It may be
supposed that the reciter intoned his song in a mono-
tone, marking it, both by means of his own voice and
artificially, with a strong rhythmic beat, but that in the
course of time it was discovered, possibly a t first
accidentally, that an occasional inflection or tone-
variation would hold the attention of the hearers more
satisfactorily. Finally, a distinct melody proceeding
from two to five notes was probably evolved, which
became the foundation for further modulations.
The development of instrumentation, although un-
doubtedly ~. very ancient, must have begun some time
2. Instru- after the rise of rhythmicintonation. It
mentation. was probably customary among the very
earliest declaimers. as it is to-day among
barbarous peoples, to emphasise the rhythmic- beat df
a song by stamping, by clapping the hands, or by
striking the breast a t proper intervals. Such an action
would have suggested the first artificial instrument of
music -the hand - drum or tambourine. The dis-
covery by primitive man of his power to produce a
whistling noise with his own mouth, which he was
perhaps impelled to do in imitation of the wind, was in
all likelihood the first step towards the invention of
wind instruments. T h e most ancient instrument of
this sort must have been a simple reed with a slit cut
in it. Stringed instruments, which were probably de-
veloped last of all, may have been suggested by the
accidental tone produced by the twang of a gut bow-
string,' which impelled some inventive genius to create
musical tones by means of similar cords strung tightly
across a resonant piece of wood or bladder.
Percussion, wind, and stringed instruments are all
mentioned in the O T ; but as we have no ancient
pictorial representations of any of them, it is impossible
to do more than conjecture concerning their form and
musical compass in early times. I t may be assumed,
however, that during the period covered by the OT history
(from about 1300 B.C.) there was a distinct musical
development, especially of the wind and stringed instru-
ments. The only authentic pictures of Jewish instru-
ments known a t present are those of the citterns on
certain late coins, probably not older than the time of
the Jewish rebellion against the Romans in 68-70 A . D . .
and those of the later form of trumpet on the arch of
Titus (79-81A.D.). There is every reason to believe
that the art of music among the early Hebrews was
essentially the same as that of the Egyptians and the
Assyrians, of whose musical performances there are
many representations. These may be used quite
legitimately, therefore, to illustrate the character of
the ancient Hebrew instruments.
We begin with instruments of percussion. (I) T h e
most urimitive Hebrew instrument was perhaus the
3. InsA-ents hand-drum or t@h (EV- ' tadret ' or
' timbrel '). This was simply a ring
Of percussion' of wood or metal. covered with a
tightly drawn skin, occasionally provided with small
pieces of metal hung around the rim, exactly like those
on the modern tambourine, of which the f@h was
the prototype. The instrument was held up in one
hand and struck with the other, as may be seen from
the accompanying illustration (fig. I) of an Egyptian
woman playing it. Both Egyptians and Assyrians seem
to have had, as well as the t@h, a drum which was
supported against the performer by a belt and beaten
1 Cp Heh. rninniln (4r. matar), Ps. 45 g !504, ' strings of a
musical instrument, properly ' how-strings. [The correctness
of MT, however, is not beyond doubt. See PIPE.]
2 qk, from cpn, 'to strikie'; Ar. dzf; Gk. nipmzvov.
qn in
Ezek. 2813 probably means the setting of a jewel (cp Cornill);
on ngni Job 1 7 6 where AV finds a ' tabret,' see Budde,
Hiol, 89.
3226
 MUSIC
with both hands (fig. 2). Among the Hebrews the
hand-drum was played chiefly by women, but sometimes
by men ( I S. 105). It was used at festivities of all sorts
4 . 8 , at weddings ( I Macc. 939), in public processions
(2 S. 65)-as well as in ordinary song (Gen. 31 27). It
was also employed in religious music of a joyous and
MUSIC
likely, that they belong to the same class as the sistva
and resembled the modern triangle,' being made of
metal, but hung with rings and shaken instead of being
struck with a metal bar. The only objection to this
view is that there is no proof of the existence in the
ancient East of triangular instruments of percussion.
According to Athenxus (Deipn. 417s),instruments for

F IG . s.-Egyptian Sistmm. From SBOT (Eng.) P s ~ z ~ s .

F IG . I. FIG. 2.
popular character (Ex. 1520 Ps.81 z), but probably not
in the Jerusalem temple worship, as it is not mentioned
in 2 Ch. 5 IZ$, where we should expect to find it along
with the cymbals.
2. T h e cymbals (mP:iZtdyim, n&D'
'cymbals' ; Gk. ~tJp/3aXa)which were used in the
temple to mark time (Ezra310) were bronze discs
struck together by the performer (Jos. Ant. vii. 123).
shaking like the sistra came to Greece from Syria, and
were used, a s in some modern European regiments,
for military field music. Nowack supposes, with little
foundation, that the fEZfEm were cymbals with three
parallel bars ( H A , 273).' That they were triangular
harps like the Gk. ~ p i y w v o sis~ also unlikely, because
the context leads us to suppose that they were instru-
; AV and KV
ments of percussion. Luther's rendering Ceige, ' viol,'
is impossible, as there were no bowed instruments in
early times.
Of wind instruments we may take first those of the

a@ They must have had outside
handles. Whether they were some-
times bell-shaped like those on
flute class. (\ a ,i Of these the most ancient was Drobnblv
*;n~2~.~~~-
class.
the flute called +E&!, $in, 2;; ' bore;
instrument (EV pipe '1, also nlbhilih,
1

a h , Ps. 51.' The Hebrew flute \+as

the Assyrian reliefs (fig. 3) it is of
originally made of reed, but afterwards
course impossible to know. T h e
F I G ~ ~ ~ f ~ t e rlate n Hebrew tradition asserts,
of wood bored through--e&, of box, lotus, laurel-and
later even of ivory and metal. There were many varieties
perhaps correctly, that cymbals
of this instrnment in use among
were used in religious worship in David's time ( I Ch.
2516). The &PLim, ~ h i (2 r S.65 ; +d:2Zi-shtha'. the Assyrians, the Egyptians,
Ps. 1 5 0 AV~ ' loud and the Greeks. Some flutes
cymbals"; RV 'high were played either like the F ~ , ~ 5 . -. ~ ~ ~Flute.
h
sounding cymbals'), modern Arab flute (fig. 6), or FromSBOT(Eng.)
as a flageolet with a mouthpiece psuz9ns.
were probably the
same instrument, of wood or metal like that of a whistle. This
although some was the case, for example, with the Egyptian and
scholars translate the Assyrian double flute (fig. 7) still used by Pales-
thisword in Ps. 1.505 tinian shepherds ; but other varieties like the Egyptian
' castanets. ' Fin- long flute (fig. 8 ) were played obliquely through a
ger-castanets like lateral blow- hole. Flutes varied greatly in length,
those now in use 4 ' i tone, and number of finger-holes. The most primitive
instruments had probably only two or three holes;
among the Arabs
(fig. 4 ) may have
k ~ . 4.--.4rah Castanets. but the later flutes seem t o have had seven, cover-
ing the entire octave. It is uncertain whether the
be& employed by the Hebrews to accompany their
popular dances ; but there seems to be no word in the
O T to denote the instrument.
3. . M P n u ' " n P ' i ~ ,n~~ g ~ ;p ~( dnp @ X a , z S. 6 5 t ; RV
' castanets ' ; AV ' cornets '), were probably an instru-
ment for shaking, like the sirtnrm4 (Gk. ueiu~por),
which among the Egyptians consisted of an oval frame
with iron rods lying loosely in holes in the sides. Rings
were suspended from the ends of these rods and a
handle supported the whole (fig. 5). These sistru were
used in Egypt in religious services, and especially at the
Isis dances (Juvenal, 1 3 9 3 8 ). The Hebrew mPnu'%e"im
were very probably similar to the Egyptian sistru. if
not exactly like them.
F IG . 7. F IG . 8.
4. T h e correct translation of the name of the fourth
and last Hebrew instrument of percussion, Sdisim hi&? was a single straight pipe, a double flute, or a
(nvhtj, dp@Xu, I S. 186t; EV ' instruments of music '), :enuine horizontal or oblique flute. In fact, the word
is more difficult to determine. T h e etymology shows nay have been applied as a generic name to these three
plainly that they were in some way connected with the rinds of instrument.
numeral three. It has been conjectured, and it seems
'
1 See RVmg., 'triangles,' three-stringed instruments' ; Vulg.
1 From !&, ' t o jingle, clash.' 'esislris.
a Jahn, Hdusl. AZt. 1, 105 : Pfeiffer, Musik d. Hedr&-r, 55. 2 @ and Perh. nuke them a sort of cymbals.
3 Pilpel, participle of pi, 'to shake.' 3 Haupt ' Psalms ' SBOT (Eng.), 233.
4 So RVmz., z S. 0 5, and Vulg. 4 Eut se; Eaethgin, Psalmen, 11.

3227 3228
 MUSIC
The &Eli2 was essentially peaceful. I t was used a t
feasts (Is. 5 I Z ) , festal processions (I K. 1 4 0 ) , pilgrimages
(Is. 3 0 z g ) , and to accompany dancing (Mt. 1117).
Besides this, it was the characteristic instrument of
mourning (Mt. 923).' Even the poorest Hebrew had
to have two flute-players and one hired female mourner
a t his wife's funeraL2 There were probably no flute-
players in the original temple orchestra, although the
Talmud, referring to the M a c c a h a n and later temple,
states that from two to twelve flutes were used at the
regular ~ a c r i f i c e . ~These were employed during the
Passover and the following season, and also during the
night services of the Feast of Tabernacles,4 when a
flute was blown at the altar to repeat the final tones of
the Hrrllil. T h e associations with the flute, however,
were evidently quite secular, as Clement of Alexandria
objected strongly to its use at Christian love-feasts on
the ground that it was a worldly instrument.
The word ndkc6, Ip>,(Ezek.28 13 ; EV ' pipes') is probably
not the name df a variety of flute,s hut a technical expression
for a jewel setting or box.
( a ) The 'zigib6 (AV ' organ,"i.e., ' pan's-pipe' ; RV
' pipe ' ), and the mzfrjkithu (only Dan. 3 5 7 IO 15 ; EV
'flute'), were in all probability one and the same
instrument-some development from the double flute,
such as a mouth-organ or pan's-pipe,y the favourite
pastoral instrument, which consisted of from seven to
nine reed pipes of varying lengths and thicknesses
tuned in a simple scale. This is the traditional inter-
pretation of 'zigib. The word seems to he used in
Gen. 4 2 1 , however, as a generic term for all wind instru-
ments. If this is so, it may have been applied later
especially to the pan's-pipe, which, strangely enough,
was the parent of the most elaborate modern instrument,
the pipe-organ, a nearer approach to which may have
been reached in the mugrzphuh of the Herodian temple.
The mugriphuh seems to have been a pipe-work with
bellows of elephant's or bull's hide and a wind-box with
ten openings, into each of which was fitted a pipe with
ten holes, so that it was possible to obtain from it one
hundred distinct tones. lo Unfortunately, the accounts
regarding this instrument are so contradictory that but
little can be known about it definitely. Thus, according
to some, it was small enough to be moved about by a
single Levite, whilst others state that its thundering
tones were audible on the Mount of Olives. This has
caused some scholars to doubt its existence altogether.
It is very likely, however, that wind-organs were known
before the discovery by Ctesibias about 250 B . C . of
the hydraulic organ. There is nothing improbable in
the idea that such a wind instrument might have
1 Jos. BY iii. 0 5. 2 Lightfoot ad Matth. 9 23.
3 'arxkh. 2 3 ; Sukk. 5 I .
4 Also Tac. HzsI.55. See on this suhject Del. Psalmen(9,
27, rem. 7. 5 Ambros, Gesch. d. Musik, aog.
Gen. 42r Job 21 12 303' PS.1504. Illy from X y ?flare?
anhelare (?) So Delitzsch.
7 @, in Ps. 150, Spyavov, Jer. organum.
8 Nn*pndofrompqm, to hiss, blow.' nl?'ia, Judg. 5 16, proh-
ably refers to the piping ofa flute, syrinx,or bagpipe (a,m p r q d s )
not 'hleatings.' n?ia, Jer.18 16, however, means 'object ofhissing.'
9 26piyf, ,fisfula Panis. 10 miin, 'ArrfRh. io 6 II a.
MUSIC
been used in the later temple. The Hebrew name
mugrtphah, which means ' a fork ' or tined shovel,'
would seem to be due to the form of the instrument,
the pipes of which were thought to resemble tines.
How it was played cannot be determined; but of
course it had no keyboard.' which was a very late
development. The accompanying illustration of a
primitive pipe-organ (fig. 9) is copied from the Con-
stantinople obelisk erected by Theodosius, who died
in 395 A . D .
The 'zigib was essentially an instrument of joy (Job
2112 3031), and was used in praise services (1's. 1504).
It was probably not a bagpipe as one tradition makes
it. This would have been too secular for use in the
worship of YahwB. The modern Jews call pianos
mushruRiten.
( 6 ) The last example of flute-like instruments is the
sumpcnyi of Dan. 3 5 15, incorrectly translated ' dul-
cimer'2 by EV (see B A G P IP E ). Sump8nyi is an
Aramaic loanword from the Gk. uup$wvla, which in
later Greek may have been used to denote the ancient
bagpipe,3 an instrument whose form possibly resembled
the modern Spanish zampulZa (Ita]. sampognu), the
name of which is clearly a derivative from uup$wvia.
I t was probably a goatskin bag with two reed pipes,
the one used as a mouth-piece to fill the bag, which in
Roman times had a pur&-vent to relieve the strain on
the player's throat, and the other, employed as a
chanter-flute with finger-holes. T h e Arab bagpipe
ghaitu, also used in Spain, has seven finger-holes.
The combined chanter mouthpiece and the three
drones of the modern Scotch war-pipe are of course
a peculiarly national development. It has been sug-
gested that sip(p)&yi Dan. 3 IO, undoubtedly used of
the same instrument s u m p i ~ y i ,may be derived from
the Gk. ui$wv, 'tube, pipe,' and may thus be the
correct form of the word.4 It is much more likely that
sifonya merely represents an Aramaic mispronunciation
of uvpg5wvia. The whole question is doubtful, because
oup$wvia in classical Greek meant a concord or unison
of sounds (cp Lk. ~ L ? I Z ~ and
) , ~ appears only in the later
language in the sense of a special musical instrument.6
I t is not likely that the uup$wvia was a sistrum.7
T h e bagpipe was popular in Rome (under
the EmDerorsL where it was called chorus
was essentially the priestly instrument. The primitive
6 , Wind instru- sh@Vzir is still to be seen in the
trumpet Synagogue ritual horn (fig. Io).which
is the oldest form of wind instrument
class. in use to-day.Y T h e early shiphi-
r 2 h , however, were used chiefly for secular purposes
' AS Saakch"tz thought, Arch. 1282.
2 Identical with the medizval psaltery described below(fig. 20).
3 So RV margin.
4 Behrmann, Dan. 9. According to Meier, Wurz~lw. 71~fi~
~ ' J B ' D is of Semitic origin, either from I 1D or ica=]Es. He
D a Semitic word with n for resolution of the
thought ~ ' J D D ~ was
doubling in a form p9g This is very doubtful.
5 AV margin, 'singing, symphony.'
Polybius, xxvi. 10 5 , Ed. Hultsch, along with K ~ P ~ T L O V .
Ducang s.v' Symphonia'
@&$$$d;e28?+he shophar,, Report of u.s.NaL
Museum, 1892, pp. 437-450. Wash. 1894.
 MUSIC
--e.g., by watchmen (Am. 36), for battle alatms
(Judg. 3 q ) , in assemblies (I S. 13 3$), and a t
coronations ( z S. 151o)-although in very ancient times
they were employed also in ritual; thus, to announce
the Jubilee (Lev.259), which takes its name from the
instrument,l and at the approach of the Ark (z S. 61s).
FIG. Io.-Horns and curved Trumpets
(8) The h&@rah was a straight metal trumpet (tuba),
according to Josephus ( A n t .iii. 126),nearly a yard long,
and but little wider than a flute, with an embouchure
and a slightly flaring bell-like end. On the relief of the
Arch of Titus two trumpets of this sort are shown lean-
ing against the golden table of shewbread (fig. 11).
The use of the &Z@@ah, in distinction from that of the
shiphipirar, was almost entirely religious. In fact, during
the time when the post-exilic temple flourished, &W-
&?:h might be blown only by priests. Thus, there
were in the temple two silver trumpets, which were
FIG. 11.-Straight Trumpet and Pipe.
sounded especially to announce festivals (Nu. 102 31 6).
and according to the Talmud two priests stood in the
temple hall blowing trumpets when the drink-offering
was presented (cp Ecclus. 50 168). One hundred and
twenty priests are said to have blown &i+?~tth in
Solomon's temple ( z Ch. 5 12). A secular use of the
instrument, however, is mentioned in Hos. 58, where it
is to be blown as a war-signal, and in z K. 11 14 and
z C h . 23x3, according to which it would seem that
hli;rC+?rtfhwere blown also by laymen. I t is possible
that the instrument referred to in these passages was
not the priestly &&@PY~/Z. but the straight later form of
the shiphdr, which, owing to its similarity of shape,
might have been confused with the religious instrument.
FIG. 12.-Trumpet on JewishCoin. FromSBOT(Eng.)PsuZm.
A coin, dating from the reign of Hadriaii (131-135A . D . ),
shows an example (fig. 12)of this trumpet, which was
probably used in war. I t will be noticed that these
trumpets differ considerably in form from the sacred
k&@trCth of the Arch of Titus. I t would appear,
however, from I Macc. 440 533, that the later Jews also
used trumpets in worship, either the straight u-ar instru-
ment or the real &&C;trZh.
Neither form of trumpet was, properly, a mnsical
instrument, as both were used merely in signalling
or in connection with other instruments to augment a
joyous uproar of the people, not to accompany any
melody (Ps. 986 1503). They were essentially instru-
1 See Josh. 13 5 Lev. 25 13 ; cp JUBILEE.
3231
MUSIC
ments of flrzi'ih, noise. Three distinct methods of
blowing them are recorded : t i k a ' , ' in blasts ' ; mufuk,
' sostenuto ' ; and he%+', ' with vibrating tones.'
Stringed instruments may be divided into two classes :
harps, on which the strings are strung perpendicularly
6. stringed or obliquely from a sound-frame either
instruments. above or below them, and lyres and
lutes, on which the strings run horizon-
tally, generally lengthwise across a sound-body. Only
three stringed instruments are mentioned in the OT, the
hinnfr and the nkdel ($5 7-9), and the iabbtkhd ($ I O ),
of which the first two were native and the last foreign.
On Neginoth ' (EV ' stringed instruments ') see special
article.
There can be no doubt that the very earliest Semitic
and Egyptian stringed instruments were always either
swept or plucked with the fingers. Later, however, as
may be seen from the monuments, use was made of a
plectrum. This was probably made at first either of
wood or of bone, but subsequently of metal. Although
there is no direct proof of the use of such a contrivance
by the Hebrews, there is no reason to doubt that it was
known to them. I t is scarcely necessary to remark
that bowed instruments were a very late development,
and are not mentioned in the O T at all.%
T h e Hebrew musical strings were probably generally
of gut, and hardly ever of metal as in the modern Arab
lutes. The statement in z S. 6 5 that the wood of which
the Jewish instruments were made was cypress seems to
depend on a textual error ; 0 but in I K. 1012z Ch. 911
it is recorded that Solomon had harps and psalteries made
of sandal-wood ( E V ALMUG,ALGUM T REES, q...) .
This was very likely imported from India and Ethiopia.
There is some confusion as to the exact nature of the
kinni~ ~ the n&d,6 and as to the distinction between
and
,. Psaltery them, one instrument being apparently
harp. sometimes called by the name of the
other. The kinnriv (and its synonym
Dan. 35 8 )is translated ' h a r p ' by EV,
whilst the n t b d (and its equivalent, pPsan?e%-in,' in Dan.
3 5 8 ) is called by EV 'psaltery,' except in Is.1411
Am.523 65, where nibel is rendered by 'viol' (in Is.
5 TZ AV viol,' RV ' lute.')
T h e two instruments represented on the late Jewish
coins (fig. 13) mentioned above strongly resemble the
Greek lyre and cittern, which were closely allied to
each other.8 In the former the frame is square, the
body oval, and there is a kettle-shaped sound-body
below. I n the latter the sides of the frame are curved
and connected across the top by a bar, which supports
the upper ends of the strings. T h e sound-body, as in
the lyre, is below, but is vase-shaped. This resem-
blance to the Greek lyre and cittern is, of course, strik-
ing, but is in itself no proof that the instruments figured
were essentially Greek not Jewish. So conservative a
people as the later Jews would never have depicted
instruments which did not resemble very strongly those
in use in their own worship a t the time, and they would
certainly not have used foreign instruments in their
services. T h e number of strings on both instruments
1 Cp on the ancient trumpet, Amhros, 492.
2 In spite of AV in Is. 5 12.
3 See RVmg.; ~ ~ i 'ryi $33 3 should be n ~ z m ~y $33, so,
after I Ch. 138, We., Dr. TBS204,HPSm., etc.
4 1113, 6 n&pa, but in rS.lGz3 K d p a . Also Josephus.
y1>3=+ahjptov in Ps. 81 3.
5 $21, @ +ahniprov; but once, d L p a (Ps.81 3), and in Am.
5 23 6 5 6pyavov.
6 D i n q a loan-word from ~ i 0 a p ~ Not . D+pp as in MT.
The K e r e changes it to the usual D i n ? of the Targums.
7 The form iqB1Dg with in Dan. 3 7 is really more correct
than 1,inj~awith n in 3 5, as in Aramaic and late Hebrew n
generally represents e and 0 ' 7 ; cp iliBtq,=Biarpov; but we do
find N o * J i n = r p L y q p (see Strack, Ncuhe6. GY. 13, s 6). Cp
D . 4 N l ~ r .[BOOK], 5 11.
8 A6pa and KrOLpa. The latter must not be confused with the
German zither. The name guitar is a derivative from rr86pa.
The guitar itself is a development of the lute.
3232
 MUSIC MUSIC
seems to vary between three and six. It is impossible Jubal in Gen. 421 (see C A I N IT E S , 11). The constant
to determine definitely which of the instruments figured translation of kiiznir by kitharu (lyre), as well as the
is the kinn5r and which is the nZde2, or whether they are descriptions of the Fathers, makes it highly likely that

FIG. 15.-Later Egyptian Lyre.

the instrument belonged to the lyre class. It was cer-

tainly not a lute,' although the lute is a development
from the primitive lyre.
The oldest form of the lyre appears on an ancient
Egyptian relief (fig. 14),showing the peaceful immigration
into Egypt of a family of Semitic Bedouins during the
FIG.q.-Citternson JewishCoins. FromSBOT(Eng.) Psalms. twelfth dyn. (see JUSEPH ii., § 8, col. 2591,and col. 19,
both varieties of the one or the other ; but the probability n. 2). One of the immigrants is carrying arudely-formed
is, as will appear presently ( 5 g ) , that they represent stringed instrument, consisting of a long four-cornered
two sorts of kinnir. board, the upper part of which is cut into a four-cornered
Any comparison of either kin-
n5r or &bel with the many
varieties of Assyrian and Egyptian
8. Their rela- stringed instru-
tion to foreign ments, however
instnuneate. suggestive, must,
of course, be
purely conjectural, as we have
practically only statements of the
Fathers to guide us.
Augustine, Eusehius, and Hilarydis-
tinguish between an instrument with
a drum-shaped sound-hody below, with
the belly turned downwards (kinndr),
-"strings
and an instrument with a sound-frame
-._,....._ .-.--...-
-hr\.,- Ilih;rh r.7.ypypA
Y

(nMel).
_I
the -..-I ". -..-
nf th-

Jerome compared the shape of the

n&Z to a A and in his explanation of
Ps. 33 2 alsd mentions the difference in
the po5ition of the .sound-hody. Of
course the Church Fathers could have
known only the late form of the Jewish
instruments which had come under
Greek and Roman influence. but it is
highly improbable that t i e funda.
mental character of the instruments had
changed materially, except, possibly,
as to size and the Of the
strings.1 FIG. z6.--Semitic captives playing Lyres. From a dah in the British Museum.
These descriptions certainly seem to show that, in the
form in which the Fathers knew the instruments, the
r a lyre and the n2beZ a pure harp.
4 k n ~ was
FIG. q.--Egyptian Lyre.
Whatever the character of the kinmir may have been,
the class of instruments which it represented was cer-
tainly very ancient, as its invention is attributed to
1 The theories of the later Jews are not trustworthy.
104 3233
frame, on which are strung seven or eight strings, all of
equal length, running parallel to the long sides of the
board. The player carries the instrument braced against
his body horizontally and plays it with a black plectrum.
His left hand is pressed against the strings. probably in
order to secure the correct tone by damping them.
This ancient representation of the lyre shows that it
must have been originally a Semitic instrument, although
the Egyptians developed it still further, as may be seen
from the accompanying illustration of one of thei? later
lyres (fig. 15).
An interesting illustration of a Hittite lyre appears on
a relief slab now in the Metropolitan Museum, New
York (see Humann and Puchstein, Reisen in KZeinasien
u. Nordsyrien, P1. xlvii. fig. 2).
The Assyrian horizontal harp, which was played in
exactly the same manner, but was essentially different
in form, must not be confused with the lyre.
The k i n n i r was probably the Hebrew form of the
lyre, and this view is strengthened by an examination
of the interesting relief (fig. 16) showing an Assyrian
warrior guarding three Semitic captives, playing on
1 The translators of the Arabic version of the London Polyglot
render ,133 by fundtir (findJr), which is a stringed instrument
of the lute species. They use also eL'md (Port. abude, Sp.
hud, Eng. Zufe).
3234
 MUSIC MUSIC
lyres held obliquely. The dress seems to indicate that The translation of n&.? by psaltery,’ however, adds
they were Israelitish prisoners, possibly in the same another element of difficulty to the identification. On
unhappy condition as that of their Judzan kinsmen (in the Assyrian monuments we find an instrument like a
later days), who are made to complain in Ps. 1 3 7 2 8 dulcimer (fig. IS), which must not be confounded with
that they had hung u p their kinn5n7th in sad despair, the pure horizontal harp. The strings on this dulcimer
because their captors required of them songs (cp, bow- must have lain parallel to each other, strung horizon-
ever, PSALMS, § 28. ix. ). The instruments on this relief,
like the lyres of the Jewish coins, seem to have four or
five strings. Josephus states, however (Ant.vii.
that the kinyru (kinn&) had ten strings and was played
with the plectrum, whilst in I S. 1623 we read that David
played the kinnfir ‘with his (own) hand,‘ which may
mean simply that David himself and no other played the
instrument. This does not imply that he did not use
a plectrum. Jerome, commenting on Ps. 332, asserts
that the k i n n i r had six strings. ‘The probability is that
the earlier Hebrew stringed instruments were much
simpler in construction, and had fewer strings, than the
later forms. That there was a distinct development of
the Greek lyre and cittern may be seen from the fact FIG. 18 -Egyptian standing Harp.
that the lyre had originally only four strings (Diod. 3 16), tally over a flat, dish-shaped sound-body. T h e As-
but later seven (Eur. Zph. in Tuur. 1129), whereas syrian artist could not represent this properly, owing to
the cittern, since Terpander’s time (700-650 B.C.),had his ignorance of the laws of perspective. This instru-
seven strings (Eur. Ion, 881), which were afterwards ment was probably the predecessor of the Arab san?.fr,
increased to eleven (Snidas, S . V . ‘ Timotheos ’). which some expositors have sought to identify as a form
The cittern (kitharu) mentioned in I Macc. 454 may of the nPbeZ. T h e suntir
have been the kinn&-. has now practically given
The idea that the nP6eZ was a sort of lute’ with place to the kindred hdnzin.
convex belly, in distinction from the kinnor, which was The twenty-stringed Greek
supposed to be a harp, mugudisl and the forty-
arose from the meaning stringed epigoneion were
of the Hebrew word n&Z, developments from some
‘ water-skin, jug,’ a which earlier instrument of the
would seem to imply that dulcimer-kdnzZn class. The
its sound-body was shaped psaltery of the later Greeks,s
like a vessel of this sort, which was an instrument
as is the case with the of the same sort, survived
citterns on the Jewishcoins. in a somewhat modified
This meaning of d b e l form into the Middle Ages
might also indicate that under the same name, and
the chief part of its sound- is found to-day in the
body was an animal mem- Hungarian c ~ i m b a l . This
~
brane(?). It is much mediaeval psaltery or dul-
more likely, in view of the cimer (fig’ ’O) was the in-
testimony of the Fathers, FIG. 19.-Assyrian Dulcimer.
strument known to the
that the n 3 e l was a harp- translators of the AV.5 One form of it, the testa
like instrument, a fair idea d i porco, was triangular, a fact which, probably
of which can be got from owing to Jerome’s giving this form to the n&I,
the representations of the seems to have caused some confusion. Of course,
Assyrian portable harp it is not quite impossible that the nPbd may have
17). although the been something like the Assyrian dulcimer ; but such
FIG.17.-Assyrian Harp. From sound-frame
(fig’ of the ngbel
a slab in the British Museum. a n idea is in direct contradiction to the descriptions
may have been shaped
differently from that of the Assyrian instrument.
Furthermore, the A shape of the n&l mentioned by
Jerome agrees with the appearance of the Assyrian
harp. Jerome’s statement may have been due, how-
ever, to a confusion of the &e2 with the Gk. rpfywvos.
Varro’s name for the nebel-psaltery, ortho-psallizm,
‘erect stringed instrument,’ shows plainly that it could
not have been a lyre, which was played in an oblique or
horizontal position. As both n&e( and kinn5r were
portable instruments ( I S. 10 5 2 Ch. 20 28) the n&l could
scarcely have been the same as the great bow-shaped
Egyptian standing harp (fig. 18). Harps of all sizes3
were in use among the Assyrians and the Egyptians, FIG. no.-Mediaeval Psaltery or Dulcimer
and there is no reason to doubt that many varieties were From SBOT (Eng.) Psalms.
used also by the Hebrews. of the Fathers, and could be only feebly supported by
1 The Jewish tradition that the lute was David’s favourite
the meaning of the name when not applied to a musical
instrument is based on a misinterpretation of Am.65 (see 1 Not to be confused with the Lydian flute of the same name.
DAVID, 5 13, n. 3). 2 See Ambros Z.C. 474.
2 The etymology is uncertain. Gk. vLpAa, viphas, VLWLOY, 3 The instrudent, whose tone-changes are alluded to in Wid.
are simply Semitic loan-words. There is no reason to suppose 191s was probably the Greek psaltery.
that n h Z is a loan-word from Eg. nfr, lute’ (We. ‘ Psalms, 4 hee Wetzstein . Del. IsaiaHz), 703.
SROT[Eng.l 222, n. 8). 6 The cembalo ;f Boccaccio and t h e sautrie of Chaucer (cp
8 Cp the illustrations in Wellhausen, SBOT (Eng.) PsaZms, Wasiliewaki, Gesch. d. Instrumental-musik im idten Jahr-
224-232. hundert 118781, 7 8 3 : ) .
3235 3236
 MUSIC
nstrument. At first, the n26d may have had only a
small number of strings. like (fig. 2 1 ) the Babylouian
hnrp (five) ; but, as its musical possibilities became
apparent, the number was increased.
Josephus asserts (Ant. vii. that
the n2beZ of his time had twelve notes
and \vas played with the flngen.
This latter statement certainly seems
to confirm the theory that the nZbeZ
was a harp, as it would have been
difficult. if not impossible, t o get a
satisfactory effect from a n instrument
of the dulcimer species without a
plectrum. I n Ps. 332 we find mention
of a n 2 b d with ten strings. The
F I G . zI,--llaby. perfected Assyrian harp had sixteen
ionian H ~ strings
~ (two
~ .octaves), which would
From S.803’ cover the range of the ordinary
(Eng.) P.d;~zs. llumall voice.
Athenreus (4 ITS), quoting from Sopatros, gives an obscure
verse from which some have sought to show that the nk6beZ was
a pipe or flageolet. The allusion, which is to a pipe-shaped
part of the instrument, probably refers merely to the hollow
curved sound-body.1
I t is quite possible that kinn5r a n d n2bd may have
been generic names. the former for all instruments of the
lyre class, and the latter for all instruments of the harp
class.
Although the lute does not appear in the OT as a
FIG. 22.-Egyptian Stringed Instruments
native instrument, there is every reason t o believe that
the Hebrews knew and used it, as it was well-known
both to the Assyrians and to the Egyptians in practically
the rnedireval form (fig. 22). T h e modern Arab lute
came from Persia, although the Arabs attribute its
invention to Pythagoras. It is highly probable that
the lute was brought t o Persia from .4ssyria or Egypt.2
Its couvex gourd-shaped belly is an indication that its
sound-body may have been originally a membrane
drawn across a gourd like a drum-head.
Neither kz’nnar nor n26e.l was used for mourning ;3
their use was alwavs on iovous occasions (Gen. 31 27
_ 1 I -
MUSIC
the above passages show. T h e n2hel on the other hand,
like the &7&ah, seems to be the more solemn instru-
ment, devoted exclusively to religious use (Am. 523 Ps.
1449) ; in fact, it was a desecration to sing popular
melodies to its accompaniment (Am. 6 5 Is. 1411). An-
other difference appears to be indicated in I Ch. 1 5 2 0 8
which points out that the n2beZ was used to accompany
song in the higher notes (‘riZimcith)and the kinniy in
the lower tones (shJmininith). ‘,lZZrim(ifh means ‘ girls,’
and the statement here may imply that the strings of
the n2bel were tuned as high as the tones of the female
voice. I n Ps. 46 I , Gratz’s rendering of nr&y 5y, ’ with
a nubZa in the Elamitic form ’ has little to support it.
T h a t high-pitched instruments should be spoken of as
similar to female voices (see ALAMOTH) has an exact
parallel in the Greek description of the shriller flutes
yuvair.;lioi ?rapOeviroi atXoi. It is of course unnecessary
to assume that the &bel was used only to accompany
women. T h e word ‘Zhinzcifk might have been used as
a general term for high tones like those of women and
could thus have been applied equally well to male
falsettos or tenors. ‘AL shkminifh may mean in this
counection ‘ according to the eighth ’ and indicate that
Kinncircith were tuned an octave lower. Other renderings
of shJnzininifh are ‘ eight-stringed instruments,’ a or ‘ in
the eighth mode. ’ This last translation is very doubt-
ful, as we kndw nothing of the ancient Semitic musical
modes. [To these difficult terms we return in special
articles, from a text-critical point of view ; see also
conspectus of new explanations in P SALMS (BOOK),
125f.I
T h e SadbJkKh6 (K+ [Gi. Ba.4], Dan.35 7 IO+) was
not a Hebrew instrument ( E V ‘ sackbut ’) ; it was prob-
ably of Syrian or late Egyptian origin. I t seems to
be the same as the Greek uapPpl;q (Latin
smnbuca), which was a sharp-toned tri-
angular musical instrument w-ith four strings, according
to Strabo (471) of ‘ barbarous ’ origin. It was said to
resemble a military siege-instrument of the same name.5
It is possible that the aa,uPpl;Kr)was originally Egyptian
and came into Syria under the Seleucida?, which would
account for its appearance in Daniel. Riehm suggests
that it may have been the same as the lute-shaped
Egyptian hand-harp, which was a hybrid creation with
a lute belly (fig. 23), but strung as a harp. Its shape
agrees with the statements regarding the uapPJq.
FIG. 23.-Egyptian lute-haped hand-harp. From the
British Museum.
T h e exmession K’U shir. ‘ instruments of song.’ 7
~~ ~~~~
D I
- e

9. Their use. Is.248), as a t feasts (Is. 512) and a t all
kinds of religious services (Ps. 332 434).
T h e instruments a r e named together in nearly every
passage referring t o the national worship ( z Ch.2925
Ps.923 1082 1503). T h e k i n n i r was undoubtedly
more generally used, as it is mentioned in the OT
44 times and the n2bd only 27. T h e use of these
two instruments may be compared to that of the sh5-
phZr and the hiE:fi.rZmh. T h e kinnl? had certainly the
rno1.e secular character of the two, as Is. 23 16 implies
that it was a favourite instrument of harlots. Of course
it was also very extensively used in religious services, as
1 An exhaustive treatise on kinndr and dbeZ will be found in
Riehm HlVAP), 1028fi (2) I O ~ Z A :
2 Cp)Amlrros, 1 1 2 3 . who ascribes to Cambyses its introduc-
tion from Egypt into Persia.
3 Cp Ps. 137 2 Job 30 31. It is interesting to note that Jer.
18 36, repeating Is. 16 11, changes i r i j to 5.5”.
3237
which occurs in several passages of the OT as a general
ll. Orchestra- term for all kinds of musical instru-
ments, shows plainly that the ancient
tion. Hebrews used instrumental music solely
to accompany singing. Indeed, the idea of independ-
ent orchestration is a comparatively modern develop-
ment. In very early times, songs were accompanied
mly by tambourines beaten by women (Ex. 1520 8 ) ;
but in later days we find various combinations of the
Hebrew musical instruments. Thus, in 2 S. 65, strings,
1 PsaZtnen, 8j. He thinks ( 7 1 ) that ‘ZZdinzbflr cannot mean
vox uirxinea, because it refers not to voices, but to instru-
nents (?).’ Instruments were used, however, only to accompany
*oices. 2 Gratz, o j . a?. 85.
3 Wellhausen Lc. on 6. 4 See Rii. on Din. 3 5.
5 Athen. 14&. 6 HWBII) 1037, (2) 1 0 5 ~ .
7 l*V,$a, Neh. 12 36 I Ch. 16 42 2 Ch. 5 13 7 6 34 12. In Am
j 5 Nowack and especially Cheyne (col. 1034, Ex). T.933,)
;uspect corruption of the text.
3238
 MUSIC
drums, and cymbals, augmented by instruments for
shaking. T h e accompanying illustration (fig.
24)of a n Assyrian quartet of two lyres, a drum, and
cymbals should be compared here. On a relief of a n
FIG. =+-Assyrian Quartet. From SBOT (Eng.) Psalms.
Assyrian orchestra (fig. 25). dating from the time of
A h - b a n i - p a l (668-626 B.C.), there are seven portable
harps, one dulcimer, two double flutes, and a drum,
all played by men, but accompanied by women and
children clapping bands to mark time. One woman is
evidently singing in a very shrill tone, as she is com-
pressing her throat with her hand just as Oriental women
do to-dzy, in order to produce a high tvemoZo. In
a similar representation of an Egyptian band, we note
a large standing harp, a lyre, a lute, an oblique shoulder
harp, and a double flute, all played by women; and only
one woman clapping her hands (fig. 26). The Assyrian
band is marching to greet the victorious monarch ; but
ments with wind and percussion ; but in both instances
the only wind instrument is the double flute. Analogous
to these combinations are the harp, timbrel, flute, and
lyre (nZbel, hph, & E M , and Kinnor) of I Sam. 105 ( a
MUSIC
band of prophets) and Is. 5 12 (at table). Although the
combination of flutes and strings is mentioned only
rarely in the OT. there is no reason to think that it was
unusual: W e must suppose that nearly all the
performers in these Assyrian and Egyptian representa-
tions are singing and accompanying themselves (except
of course the flute-players), a fact which the artist did
not represent except in the case of one member of the
Assyrian full band. The use of trumpets with other
instruments does not appear until quite late ( z Ch. 5 I Z ~
2028 2 9 2 6 8 ) ) .and then they were employed only in the
pauses of the song.
It is of course impossible to state anything definite
regarding the origin of the music of the Hebrew-s.
l a . Develop- According to their own tradition, in-
strumental music was invented by Jubal
merit of
11), who was the
Hebrew music. (see fatherCAINITES,
of all such as handle the lyre
and the double flute (or pan's-pipe) : all who played on
stringed and wind instruments (Gen. 421). I n early
times such instrumental music as there was-songs
accompanied by the hand-drum, flute, or simple form
of lyre-was probably purely secular, used as it is to-
day among the Bedouins a t pastoral merry-makings
( F n . 3127 Job211z). The Hebrew, like all other
primitive music, stood in the closest relation to poetry,
as may be inferred from the mention of musical accom-
paniment to song (Ex. 1520 I S. 186). I t was used
extensively a t festivities, but does not escape the severe
condemnation of the prophets (Am.65 Is.512). In
the Greek period the popularity of secular music appears
to have greatly increased (Ecclus. 324-6), nor can this
be unconnected with the Hellenising movement among
the Jews. According to Josephus, however (Ant.
xv. 81), it was Herod the Great who first introduced
Greek songs accompanied by instruments.
Of the music in use a t Canaanitish shrines we know
absolutely nothing. Without some notion of that, how-
ever, we cannot continue to speak positively as to that
and another in which Greek influence profoundly modi-
fied the earlier system (see PSALMS [BOOK], § g, ii. ).
All that we are concerned to maintain here is that the
development was continuous. W e may conjecture that
 MUSIC
the only music originally enjoined by the Hebrew ritual
was the blowing of trumpets by priests a t the new
moons (Lev. 2324 2 5 9 ) and at feasts ; but we may be
sure that in the royal sanctuary a t Jerusalem an orchestra
of instruments would not be wanting. Whatever the
pre-exilic musical system was, we know that it did not
die out during the exile, for we find that a number
of singers and musicians returned to Palestine with
Zerubbabel (Ezra 241 Neh. 744). W e can also easily
credit the statement that music enlivened the ceremony
of the laying of the corner-stone of the second temple,
and of the consecration of the city walls (Ezra3lo&
Neh. 1122 l 2 2 7 & ) , and it is doubtless a historical fact
that the rededication of the temple under Judas the
Maccabee was celebrated with vocal and instrumental
music ( I Macc. 4 5 4 ) .
In studying the character of the ancient Hebrew
music we are limited to conjectures based on our some-
ct221r. what uncertain data regarding the nature
and the use of the instruments and of
the temple ritual. That music was re-
garded as a noble art may be seen from Ecclus.
445, where the composition of melodies is spoken of
as a high accomplishment. Although the music was
no doubt extremely crude from a modern occidental
point of view, it certainly had considerable effect on the
hearers ( I S. 16 1 6 3 z K.3 15). Most modern writers
on this subject are liable to err in one of two directions.
They either, like many Jewish Rabbins, exalt the char-
acter of early musical art in Israel, or they are too apt
to dismiss it as a mere barbarous system. In much the
same way the average occidental traveller of the present
day is almost sure to undervalue from an artistic point
of view the shrill unison singing of the Arabs. The
probability is that the Hebrew music like that of the
modern Arabs was rhythmical rather than melodious.
The Arab tunes consist generally of well marked rhyth-
mical cadences following a somewhat monotonous
melody always sung and accompanied in unison. That
unison singing and accompaniment was characteristic
also of the ancient Israelites is seen from z Ch. 5 13 :
' and both the trumpeters and the singers were as one
making one sound to praise and exalt Yahwk.' This
simply means that the trumpets all played together on
the same note at the proper pauses of the song and that
the voices sang the air in unison. There can be no
doubt that a modern well- balanced oriental chorus
singing in unison, accompanied by strings. wood-wind.
and percussion, has a powerful artistic effect even on a
European listener, provided that he is sufficiently un-
prejudiced to lay aside for the moment his harmonic
training and allow himself to be swayed by the quaver-
ing movement of the shrill but rarely untrue voices and
instruments, accentuated by the ceaseless thrum of the
tambourines. T h e character of the melody itself be-
comes quite secondary in such a case and only the
general effect is felt. The Hebrew songs and psalms
must have influenced the listener in much the same way
as the modern Arab is affected by his music.
Harmony was as unknown to the ancient Israelites
and Greeks as it is to-day to the Arabs, Turks, and
Its beginnings are trace-
14. Harmony. Persians.
able, however, in melodies where the
lower voices and strings dwell on the dominant or fifth,
producing a n effect like the drone of a bagpipe, while
the higher parts render the air with striking distinctness
and accuracy. European harmony began about the
tenth century A. D.
W e may suppose that the Israelitish choirs sang and
played in octaves,' as the terms 'Zam8fhand skZmininitk,
mentioned already ( J 9), as referring respectively to
the high and the low pitched instruments, would seem
to indicate. It is probable that in the temple worship
the higher vocal parts were taken by male falsettos and
1 The strings of the twenty-stringed magadis were tuned in
octaves. MayaK<frv means 'sing in octaves.'
324'
MUSIC
tenors, rather than by women, who do not appear at all
in the temple service. The three daughters of Heman
mentioned ( I Ch. 25 5 ) , are not meant to be included in
the list of temple ministrants any more than are the
singing women referred to in Ezra265 (cp Neh.767
I Esd. 542). The girls playing on tabors (Ps. 6825)
figured simply in a procession. T h e boy choir men-
tioned in the Talmud as standing below the main chorus
is not referred to in the OT.
In spite of lack of harmony, the ancient Hebrew
singing was not a mere monotonous cantillation.
Excellent effects could. no doubt, be produced by
means of antiphonal choruses which must have been
used extensively both in the secular and in the religious
music-thus, in secular music in I S. 1 8 6 3 Ex. 1521,
and devotionally in the various antiphonal psalms
(Pss. 20 21 118 136). The parallelism so common in
the sacred poetry seems to point to such antiphonal
usage. In many cases the psalms were sung by two
answering choirs ; both of which must frequently have
united, however, in rendering the effective finale (cp
Ps. 1 2 1 ) . Both the Assyrians and the Egyptians proh-
ably sang airs of all kinds in this way.
The Christian hymns mentioned in the N T (see
H YM N S ), which were no doubt of Hebrew origin, were
in all likelihood sung in the same manner (Eph. 5 19 Col.
3 16). In fact, we know that the early Christians had
an antiphonal system which still survives in the Gregorian
and oriental psalmody.*
Very little can be stated with certainty regarding the
character of the melodies themselves, as we have abso-
16. lutely no specimens of them. Unlike
the later G r e e k ~ , ~ t Semitic
he races nevtr
invented a system of musical notation whereby their
airs could be recorded, and the modern oriental systelrs
of this kind are few of them older than the seventeenth
century of the present era. Nothing is known of the
Hebrews' scale or modes except that, as stated before,
their musicians must have been familiar with the octave
which was a very ancient development in music. It
was the basis of Terpander's scale of seven notes, and
appears doubled at the time of Aristoxenus, the pupil of
Aristotle, when a scale of fifteen tones was in use.,
The Hebrew religious scale was probably diatonic,
1s Clement of Alexandria and Augustine both warned
the faithful to avoid the heathen chromatic style of
singing and advised them to return to the simple
psalmody of David. It is clear, therefore, that they
thought this to have been diatonic-ie., proceeding
according to the signature of the prevailing key. They
reasoned, no doubt from the accepted contemporary
Jewish usage, which was probably diatonic. Clement
likens the style of the current Hebrew music to the
3reek Doric mode which Aristotle said was the only
musical style giving perfect calm to the soul. The
Doric and the Phrygian were minor modes and the
Lydian was exactly equivalent to the modern major.
The most ancient connected specimen of music which
N e have is the famous Greek prean to Apollo in the
?hrygian scale of the Doric mode, which was discovered
it Delphi in 1893 by the members of the French school
If Archreology a t Athens4 T h e following few bars
nay prove of interest, as the hymn, which is in the
.egulation five-time peculiar to the rea an,^ is undoubtedly
rery ancient, although it may be doubted whether the
rir is as old as 277 B. c., the date of the establishment
)f the Soteria festival a t which it was sung.6 The ode
vas accompanied by the flute and kithara.
Piin. E#. 1097.
2 Cp the eight styles of Armenian spiritual song (ZDMG
13668:).
8 Cp Revue d r s gtirdes Grecques 1894 7 xxxvx. Pauly,
5'eaZcncycl. dev class. Alter~hum;wissbnschafc,18;4, S.P.
Alypius.'
4 RP7,ue des gtudcs Grecpues, 7 3jf:
5 Bxlletin de corres#ondexce Helllnique, 17 593-6, on Greek
hythm.
6 Berliner Philologische Wochenschrz+i, 14 931.
3242
 MUSIC
a . el ame kabel a ~ te fi ~ 10t.3
Finally, the cantillatory modulations represented by
the accents are also of late origin. Of these there are
three distinct styles ; one for reading the Torah, one for
the Prophetic books, and one for the Psalms, Job, and
Proverbs. T h e accent-signs do not have the value of
musical notes, but are simply a mnemonic rhythmic
system intended to aid the reader in remembering
melodies which he has already learned orally. These
chants have become much changed in the course of
time and vary in different c o ~ n t r i e s . ~
The following works give lists of the older literature :-
Forkel, Allgenteine Gesch. d. Musik,1 173-184; Leyrer, PRE121
10387-398;Uqolini Thes. 33 G ' also Amhros,
16. Literature. Gesch.d. Musik: benz. H A (i894); Brown,
Musical instruments and their Homes
(N.Y.1888); Del. Physiologk u. M u d (1868); Psalmen, 2 5 8 ;
Ew. Die Dichter d. Alten BunrlesllJ1 2 , Now. H A 1270-
7 9 ; PfeiNeer, Die Musik d. Alten Hpoi)ri; (1779); Riehm,
U W B P ) ,1028.45, (2) 1042-59;Saalschiitz, Arch. d. Hebr. (1855);
Schenkel BL 4256-264(1872); We. 'Psalms'in SBOT (E:&);
Winer, hibL Reaher$rterduch, 2 r Z n 8 ; F. L. Cohen, Kise
and Development of Synagogue Music,'Anglo-/ewishHistorical
Exhi6ition Papers (1888), 80-135. J . D. P.
MUSICIAN, TO TEE CHIEF (us?$ ; d CIS A
&os ; Aq. sW YLI(OBOL@; Sym. ilrwirios ; Theod. cis& V ~ S
Jer. v i c t o r i dr pro uictoria; Tg. Nn3tv5, 'ad laudandam').
The expression occurs in the headings of fifty-five
psalms, and in the subscription of the prayer or psalm
of Habakkuk (Hab. 3 ~ 9 ) . Tradition is divided. d
adopts the sense of 'eternity.' reading most probably
Z&zd:uh, n+i.e., with reference to the period of the
end.'
Cp Dan. 11 13, where D'Rp? r$?,
'at the end of the times '
(RV), is rendered in 6 r a d mvrshrrav .arpo$ (see Eus. etc., a#.
Del.,-and cp Mt. 1339, etc.), and by Theod. s i s ( r b ) T ~ A O T&Y
S
rarpov.
1 This section is taken from the, m,iddle of ?he hymn before
the first pause. The musical text IS illegible in several places.
RCvue des Etudes Grecgues, 7 40.42.
a PR .m2t IO
3 For further specimens, see D e Sola, The Ancient Melodies
o f t h e Sjaaish and Portuguesejmrs (1857).
4 For specimens, cp Japhet, Die Accented. N e i l & #Schnyt
(1896)~1 7 0 8
3243
MUTH-LABBEN
Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion adopt the sense
borne by nri in Mishnic Hebrew, Jewish Aramaic, and
Syriac. The Targum comes the nearest to the prevalent
modern interpretation, which is 'for the precentor, or
director of music,' and is supported by n>nyin,m~na&im,
'
which clearly means ' superintendents '(cp I Ch. 23 4).
2 Ch. 2 I [z] 17 [18] 34 13, and, according to most, by the
use of the infinitive nxI5, ZcnagiZ&, in I Ch. 1521 in a
specialised sense for leading in the liturgical service of
song. Olshausen, however, long ago pointed out that
' for the precentor ' is a very superfluous direction, and
various attempts have consequently been made to pro-
vide a more satisfactory explanation, based on the view
that nxj,
. .. ni;siZ& had the specialised sense referred to.
Ewald takes menagiZ& as a n abstract form meaning
' performance with temple music' (so also Ges.-Bu.),
whilst BDB, on the analogy of led(ivid, mi, suggests,
' Belonging to the Director's Collection of Psalms.'
These explanations are based on the MT of I Ch. 1521.
For a more probable though still not certain explanation
see PSALMS [BOOK], § 26 (19),with note, where the
subject is discussed afresh. Cp also M ASCHIL.
T. K. C.
MUSTARD ( C I N A ~ ;I Mt. 1331 1720 Mk. 4 3 1 Lk.
1319 176f). In all five passages the minuteness of the
seed is referred to, whilst in three the seed is spoken of as
growing into a herb large enough to be called a tree and
to have applied to it an echo of the phrase in Dan. 4 12 [9]
' the birds of the heaven dwelt in the branches thereof'
(cp Ezek. 1723). The former detail presents no difficulty,
for although there are in fact several seeds smaller than
the mustard, it is certainly one of the smallest, and ' a
grain of mustard seed ' was a proverbial expression for
a minute quantity, found both in the Talmud (e.$. , Ber.
51) and in the Koran (e.g., 2148). On the other hand,
that it should be spoken of as growing into a tree gives
rise to difficulty, and has led many (e.g., Royle) to sup-
pose that the reference is to SaZnadorapersica, a tree
which the Arabs call by the same name as mustard
(&z?daZ), and which Irby and Mangles ( TruveZs in
E g ~ p t 108)
, found growing on the southern shores of the
Dead Sea. This, however, is most unlikely, for S. per-
ricn is of rare occurrence in Palestine and probably
never travelled farther N. than the Dead Sea.' The
mustard plant, which is common throughout the country,
has often been found growing to a height of 8 to 1 2 ft.,
and great numbers of small birds alight upon its stalks
in order to pluck the seeds (cp Furrer, BL 5281 ; Tris-
tram, NHB 473). An unlikely hypothesis is that adopted
by Holtzniann and B. Weiss that in Lk. the tree is
meant, whilst in Mk. the writer is rather thinking of the
kerb.2
The mustard plant common in Palestine is the black
species, Brassica nigra, Boiss. N. M.
MUTH-LABBEN, TO (125 n d ? p ) , a difficult
;
phrase or note, occurring only in Ps. 9 title [I] ( y n a p
r W N K P Y ~ I W NTOY yioy [BKA, R omits TOY yioy]
, . . N E A N ~ O T H T O C T. y. [Aq.]; for these renderings
'P AMMOTH ; Hexad. A h M W 8 BEN, SYm. TIEPI T O Y
BANATOY TOY YlOY, Theod.. Quint; YlTEp A K M H C
r o y yi., Sext. NEANIKOTHC T. yi.). Az-muth, nin-by,
,s a corrupt form of *aZ-'ZZZm2h n i ~ S p - 5(see ~ A LA -
M O TH ) ; but the meaning of Lahden (dR om.), if the
-eading is correct, is unknown. Following the M T (for
.
.he death of . . ) the Targum refers it to Goliath, the
if hadbindyim, r p ? ~ ?d*y, of I S. 174; other Rabbinic
miters not less improbably identified the name with the
juestionable BEN ( 4 . v . ) of I Ch. 15 18. or with Nabal
531 by metathesis). Most moderns (e.g., Hitzig, Hnp-
&Id, Delitzsch, Beer) suppose mcth Zudh2n (125 nin) to
le the opening words of an air, to the melody of which
1 [Cp Jiilkher, Gleichnisreden, ii. 575.1
2 [An Oriental who was no hotanist might well call the
nustard plant a tree, remarks Jiilicher, 03.cit., 575.1
3244
 MUTILATION
the psalm was to be sung. The analogy of many
other enigmatical insertions, however, suggests a more
plausible theory. One of the guilds of singers bore the
name Salnrah ; we should perhaps read, for 125 nio-k,
j&D 7125, e of the sons of Salmath.' See PSALMS
(B OOK ). 5 26 ( I , 18). T. K. C.
MUTILATION. See CUTTINGS OF THE F LESH ;
also L A W ANI3 JCSTICE, 5 11.
MYNDUS (MYNAOC). A city on the Carian coast,
a t the extreme western end of the Halicarnassian
peninsula, N. of the island of Cos; only mentioned in
I Macc. 1523, as a place in which Jews were settled
(139 H . c . ) . From early times Myndus possessed a
fleet (Herod. 533=about 500 B.C.). The town suffered
from the proximity of Halicarnassus, and never became
important-this is indicated by the fact that its coinage
does not begin until the second century B . C . The
civilisation and importance of the Carian coast declined
throughout the Konian and Byzantine periods. I t is
now GumushZi (or l'emishlu, Murray, Handbook to
AM I I ~ )a, name derived from the silver mines worked
in the neighbourhood, both in ancient and in medizval
times.
On the site, see Paton in journal of Hellenic Studies,1887,
p . 66; 1896, p. 204. W. J. W.
MYRA(..\cts275 ~ y p a [ L P Blass], , MYPPA [B Jer.,
Lachm., Tisch., Treg., WH], and, according to D in
211 aic ITATAPA K A I MYPA). Myra (mod. Dembre.
from corruption of THN M Y P A N ) ~in Lycia stood on a
lofty hill at the angle of the gorges of the Myrus and
the .4ndriace, 24 m. from the sea (20 stades, Strabo, 666).
Its port was Andriace at the mouth of the river of the
same name (mod. r?ndraki. Cp Appian, B C 4 8 2 ,
Adurhos, i m m p @ 3 ~ 1' A
~ ~ a p i a i ~Mup4wv
y, 2 u i u d q , T ~ TUE been misunderstood. According to this eminent author-
ahuaiu Eppq@ TOO hrpdvos, Kal 8s Mdpa du?jci). Myra
was of no special importance during the Greek period ;
but its importance continually increased under the
Empire and through the Byzantine period, until at last
it becanie the capital and metropolis of Lycia (Hier.
530) : the monastery of S . Nicolas (born at Patara,
bishop of Myra 3rd cent.) on the road to the port was
probably the cathedral. This importance arose from
the intimate connection of the town with the maritime
traffic which devcloped under the Ptolemies between the
eastern Agean and Egypt (cp Paton and Hicks, Znscrip-
tions of Cos. p. xxxiii : 'there must have been daily
coniinunication between Cos and Alexandria' ; see also
Rams. St. P a d the TraveZZw, 298). When, under
the Empire, the Egyptian trade, especially that in
grain, was diverted to Rome, this connection still con-
tinued. For although Myra lies nearly due N. of
Alexandria. the corn-ships, owing to the westerly winds
prevailing in the Levant in the summer months (Purdy,
SaiZinz Directions, 197,1841 ; cp Acts 2741, ran
straight across to Lycia, and thence to the S . of
Crete. H e m e Paul, on his voyage to Rome, 'sailed
over the sea of Cilicia and Pamphylia ' and e came to
Myra' where a n Alexandrian corn ship (~rhoZou'A~E&zu- m6r' in Cant. 1 1 3 (if the text is correct) may be held to
6piu6u, v. 6 ; cp v. 38) was found, on the point of sailing
for Italy : the centurion could certainly count upon
1 T h e form of the name invites discussion. I n Acts it is neut.
pl. ;but many authorities have the fem. sing. M6pav or M6ppav.
T h e passages of Strabo (666) and Ptolemy (v.36), which have
M$pa, d o not assist us; hut we find the plural form in Ptol.
viii. 1723 and Pliny HiV32 2 ; and so also in CIG no. 4288
and Notifire(which have 6 M6puv; see table in Rams. Hist:
Geogr. of A M 4 2 4 ) . T h e Byzantine authors in general use the
plural form-eg., Zon. 3 589 and Malalas 448 (hut cp id. 36j,
MI$pq)., Hence we infer that the proper form was & M6pm
+
the feminine form Mdpa heing vulgar but gradually assertmi
itself. T h e .%me difficulty is foundin the case of Lystra(which
see, and cp Rams. St. Paul the Traveller, 1 z S J ) .
2 I n fifteen days from Czsarea, marg. WH from West. text and
Vss.-' which appears to have a reasonable probability of heing
the true reading' ; cp the corn ship in Lucian, which took ten
days from Sidon to the Cheledonian islands 20 m. E. of Myra.
8 C p the voyape of Vespasian to Rome (Jos. B3 vii. 2 I), and
that of Titus (Suet. Tit. 5).
3245
MYRTLE
finding a westward-bound ship in Myra, and there
was no change of plan on his part as Lewin (St. Paul,
2716) supposes.'
The port of Myra must have been a t least sighted,
and was probably visited, by the ship in which Paul
sailed to Palestine from Macedonia (Acts21I ; note
the insertion in D, as above). T h e importanceof Myra
lasted into the Middle Ages, when it is described as the
harbour of the Adriatic' (portus A d r i n t i c i maris, Le.,
the Levant). St. Nicolas usurped the place of the
pagan deity as the patron of sailors in this part of the
Mediterranean : the name of this patron deity in ancient
times is not known (probably Apollo; but Tozer, in
Finlay's Hi.rt. Greece, 1 124, suggests Poseidon).
The many magnificent rock-tombs with sculptures
and painting, the imposing theatre, and the remains of
buildings near the port, among them those of a granary
built by Trajan, 119 A . u . , bear witness to the import-
ance of the city.
See views in Spratt and Forbes, Travels in Lycilr, "01. i.
front.; Fellows, Account ofDisroverivs in Lycia, ,98$ Most
recent are Benndorf's Lykia, and Tomaschek's ' Historische
Toptigr. von Kleinasien im Mittelalter' in SWAW, 1891.
W. J. W.
MYRRH (>bor >in,mcir; CMYPNA Ex.3023 Ps.
458 [g] Cant. 3 6 4 6 14 51 5 13' and CMYPNINOC Esth.
OT m6r. 212, KPOKOC or KPOKINOC Prov. 717.
CTAKTH Cant. 1 r j t ) . M6r was one of
the ingredients in the holy incense, and is often men-
tioned as a valuable and choice perfume. T h e word
is generally identified with Arab. mnurr (Aram. m d r i ,
Gk. ~ d p p a Jim,
,~ with the sense of bitterness), and
the substance meant taken to be the myrrh of modern
commerce (Ar. mu7-r). The botanical origin, however,
of the modern myrrh has, according to Schweinfurth.
ity, true Arabian myrrh is the product, not of Ealsamo-
dendron OpobaZsamum (which yields balsam of Mecca ;
see B ALSAM ) but of Balsamodendron A4yrrka. The
old view of Nees and Ehrenberg is thus vindicated.
At the same time, it becomes thereby all the more
probable, according to Schweinfurth, that Mecca balsam
2. Perhaps is the O T m8r. ib' (mcir), he argues
' is always referred to in the sense of an
=Mecca aromatic liquid [cp BALSAM], whilst
[modern] myrrh is a Solid body, entirely
or almost devoid of aroma, but rather, as used in
medicine, of a disagreeable odour. ' This revolutionary
theory deserves serious attention ; Kautzsch has been
among the first to profess his adhesion to it. W e
should not, of course, require to suppose with Schwein-
furth that Heb. mOr is a different word from Arab.
m u r r (the modern myrrh). The two words agree
exactly in form, and there are many instances in
botanical history of a name being transferred from one
plant or substance to another which is different though
similar. Certainly the mentions of 'flowing m6r' (Ex.
3023) and 'liquid mcir' (Cant. 5 5 13) favour the new
view, whilst the reference to a ' bundle (or, bag ') of
tell against it. Whatever the m6r of OT may have
been, the upcipua of N T is most probably the sanie.
For h,,
+7t (Gen. 37 25 43 IT), rendered 'myrrh' in E V but
'ladanum in R V w . , see L A D ANUM. N. M.
MPRTLE (b??, ha'das; MYPCINH, Is.4119 5513;
Zech. 181of: Neh. S15f; in Zech. 65 TUN 0 p a ~ N ) .
Branches of myrtle are included among those of whlch
the booths of the Feast of Tabernacles were made in
1 See on this point, Smith Voyage and Shipwreck of St.
PaulP), 6 8 3 ; Rams. 0 )
. :it. 319. T h e voyage of the
Egyptian corn-ship described in Lucian's dialogue, Tire Sh$,
well illustrates this section of Paul's journey.
2 up<pva also Ecclus. 24 15 Mt. 2 IT Jn. 1939 and ;upvpvru-
pCvor blk. 1923.
3 I t is noticeable that p6ppa occurs nowhere either in the
L X X or in N T ; pQpov (supposed to he derived from in), on
the other hand, is met with frequently, as also its derivative
pupe$dr ; pvpi5w and puprup6c occur each once.
3246
 DdpSIA
the time of Ezra. On the other hand, in Lev.2340
(a passage of the Holiness-law [HI), the list of trees pre-
scribed does not include the myrtle (see T ABERNACLES,
§ 5 ) . .Nor can we safely quote the original name of Esther
as evidence for the existence of the myrtle in Palestine,
for Esther (at least if the text has not suffered change)
is represented as a Jewish maiden dwelling at Susa.
T h e reference to the myrtle in Zech. (Z.C.) must also
probably be abandoned, hlidassim being surely a mis-
s
reading for h i r i m (see COPPER, 5). I n Is. 41 19 55 13.
the myrtle is mentioned among the choicest trees by the
writer or writers of Is. 40-55. I t is true, Is. 40-55 is a
late exilic work (expanded still later) ; but the relations
of the Israelites with neighbouring peoples under the
later kings were so close that we must not give too
much weight to the silence of pre-exilic records. T h e
name H ABAKKUK (q.v.),some think, is corrupted from
a Babylonian plant-name, and we could easily believe
that later kings of Judah interested themselves in ac-
climatising foreign trees and shrubs. The myrtle was
certainly not common in Palestine when the Holiness-
law was written, otherwise its branches would snrely
have been prescribed for the festive wreath.
If Jensen is right 1 in connecting the Assyrian hada5afum(a
syn. o f k u l h t u 'bride') with the Heb. hlidus 'myrtle ' it may
seem to favour'the hypothesis that the myrtle was iniroduced
into Palestine from Babylonia (cp Intr. Is. 274). But though
recent critics have found a connection between Hadassah and
Audarri (the mythic name of t h e bride of the Babylonian Sun-
god ; see ESTHER), it is disputed whether kudm"d is so called
for an etymological reason (as if=&uda5afum) or on mytho-
logical grounds ( @ i n ,'myrtle ' corresponding to Daphne in the
myth of Apollo). The connedtion proposed hy Jensen is hardly
in itself very plausible. For the name @ i n(not Din) is identical
with its S. Arabian ap llation (kudus); t h e Aramaic (and N.
Arabic) word was d i g e n t , though possibly connected-vir,
dsd, which, according to Frinkel (138), came into Arabic as a
loan-word.
The myrtle was sacred to Astarte. and hence, also,
according to Winckler (op.cit. ), to Ramman or Tarnmuz,
whose sanctuary near Antioch was called by the Greeks
Daphne (@in?). T h e fragrance of its leaves and
blossoms naturally suggested consecration to Astarte.
Not less naturally the Jewish authorities appointed or
sanctioned the use of myrtle branches a t the Feast of
Booths (cp T ABERNACLES , 7). SukRa (34) says that
three myrtle branches are required for the wreath, and
the tradition is still faithfully preserved by the Jews.
The myrtle is a low evergreen shrub with dark and somewhat
thick leaves, elegant white flowers, and dark brown berries.
Its leaves are studded with numerous receptacles for oil, which
produces its pleasant perfume. It,grows wild in many of the
glens about Jerusalem, and is cultivated in every garden. I t
flourishes, too, in t h e valleys ahout Hebron, on the sides of
Carmel and Tabor, in the clefts of the Leontes, and in the
dales of Gilead (Tristram). T. K. C.
MYSIA ( H MYCIA, Acts167f.). An ill-defined
district in the NW. corner of Asia Minor. The
1. situation. difficulty of drawing a precise line of de-
marcation between it and Phrygia gave
rise to a saying ( ~ w p i r76 Muurjv K U ~+pry& dpiupara :
Strabo, 564, 572). This was a result of the chequered
history of this part of the peninsula, as Strabo says
(565). The Phryges crossed from Thrace by the
Hellespont, and at a later period fresh swarms of in-
vaders from Europe. the Mysi, penetrated into Asia,
pushing the Phryges inland and settling among them
(cp Rams. Hist. Geog. AM 146). T h e general result
of the data furnished by the geographers is that Mysia
lay surrounded by Bitbynia, Phrygia, and Lydia, ex-
tending both to the Propontis and the a g e a n (cp
Strabo, 564). Towards Bithynia, the Mysians seem to
have occupied the country as far as the lake Ascania,
whilst on the S. they extended to the river Caicus. On
the W. lay the Troad, which was sometimes regarded
as part of Mysia. and sometimes distinguished from
it, the bonndary in the latter case being the river
Bsepus (Strabo, 560). On the E. lay that part of
Phrygia which was called Phrygia Epiktetos, or 'Ac-
1 W Z K M 6 2 1 r ; butcpWi. A F 2 4 i g f . '
3247
MYSIA
quired Phrygia,' a district once largely Mysian, but
taken from Bithynia by the Pergamene kings (cp Rams.
Hist. Geog. A M 145). The whole region called Mysia
was commonly regarded as falling into two divisions-
Mysia Olymp&nC( ' O X U ~ H V in ~ J the
? ~ ) neighbourhood of
Mt. Olympus, and Mysia PergamSne ( I I e p y a p ~ v f i on)
the Caicus (Strabo, 566, 571). Other parts of Mysia
also bore special names. I t will be seen from this,
that, of the places mentioned i n the N T , Assos.
Adramyttium and Troas were in Mysia. The name
Mysia, having a purely ethnical significance, was not
adopted in Roman official usage ; but the district was
part of the great province of Asia (cp Strabo, 629).
See ASIA, L YDIA.
The relation of Mysia to the N T narrative is paren-
thetical, but important. Paul, after a vistation of the
churches founded on his first journey, was
2.
intending to follow the great road leading
visit. to Ephesus in order to ' preach the word in
Asia,' but was forbidden to do so (Acts 166). Turning
northwards, Paul and his companions ' when they were
come over against Mysia' (v.7, R V ; but AV ' t o
Mysia ' ) attempted to enter Bithynia ( L e . , the western
part of the Province Bithynia-Pontus, second only in
importance to Asia itself), but were ' forbidden ' to cross
the frontier. Accordingly, 'passing by Mysia' (v. 8
EV) they ' came down to Troas.'
Two questions arise :-(i.) The meaning of the ex-
pression Kar& r?v Muuiav, (ii.) the meaning of the
expression rapeX8bvres r+v Muuiav.
i. T h e use of the preposition K U T ~ .in N T Greek
requires elucidation.' Here we must acquiesce in the
explanation given by Ramsay (Church in R. E ~ z p . ( ~ )
75, n.)-'when they reached such a point that a line
drawn across the country a t right angles to the general
line of their route would touch Mysia,' Le., when they
were in the Zatitude of Mysia, which lay to the left (for
this sense of Kard, cp Herod. 1 7 6 , Thiic. 665 104, Acts
277, Karh rhv Kvisov). Paul must have diverged
from the road to Ephesus either a t Iconium or a t
Antioch, and travelled northwards along the direct
road to Bitbynia through Nakoleia and Dorylaeum
(Seidi Ghazi and EsRi-Shehr).Z Why Paul went
northwards is not explained; nor can explanation be
wrested from the text, as it is clear that the resolve to
enter Bithynia was not formed until the point indicated
6y the words KUT& r 3 v Muuiav was reached (see G ALATIA,
7,[also 8 111). This point was probably Dorylaeum,
which lay only about 2 0 m. S. of the frontier. Mysia,
as ordinarily understood, lay then so far away to the
left that it is hard to see why reference to it rather than
to the name of the town itself should have been made.
When, however, we remember that Dorylreum lay in
the heart of the region called Epiktetos,s which was a t
one time, and by some writers, reckoned part of Mysia
(cp HGAIM, 146),it is not difficult to understand how
Lk. may have been actually under a slight misappre-
hension as to the extent of Mysia.
ii. When, at Dorylaeum, it was found that there could
be no further progress northwards, Paul turned west-
wards. Whether he traversed the valley of the Rhyn-
dacus (Edrenos Chai),or took some more direct route,
he could not reach Troas without going through some
part of Mysia. Hence aaprXB6vres r?v Muuiav cannot
be translated ' passing without entering,' or ' passing
along the edge of Mysia.' T h e sense here must be
' neglecting ' (in obedience to the general prohibition to
'preach' in Asia of v. 6). The western text has &eXBbvrer,
w-hich in its literal sense is Still, it must be
1 Cp the difficultyof interpreting the expression IC=& AiSa
x a l rard xiupov in Acts 27 12. See P H E K I C E .
2 It is possible, as Ramsay (op. c i f . 76 n.) says, that Paul took
the longer western road by Cotyzum (Kutuyu), which town, in
that case would be the point of second divergencq.
3 Phr;gia Epiktetos contained the SIX cities. hlidzum, Dory-
Izum, Cotyzum Nakoleia, Aizani, and Cadi (Strapo, 576).
4 Nevertheles;, it would overthrow the canon which Ramsay
3248
 MYSTERY
conceded that the sudden change to the metaphorical
meaning in the case of aapeXKwres, immediately after
the occurrence of G~ijABov ..
. ~ A ~ ~ V in
T Ethe
S Zitera2
sense is a stylistic defect. .4nd this criticism applies in
a special degree to this entire passage.’
Ramsay mentions a tradition that, on this journey, Paul
travelled by Artemaa. a town ‘sacred to Artemis’ near the hot
springs on the river E s e p u s , and founded a chapel in the neigh-
hourhood (St. Paul the TraueNer, 197 ; Ex#. T’,rEg8, p. 495).
This and other similar traditions may well preserve a n echo of
the truth, for the route down the Rhyndacus and along the
southern shore of the Propontis was that most likely to he
chosen and this would take Paul through Artemaa. Although
preaching in Asia was forbidden there is no doubt that the
prohibition applied only to public’work on a large scal;, not to
the private intercourse of Paul with his hoyts on his journey.
Possibly i t was under the influence of the tradition mentioned
above that the western text made the change to 8iehSdurfs in
w. 8. T h e ‘door’ that ‘was opened ’ to Paul a t Troas (2 Cor.
2 12) would imply a n extension of the new teaching eastwards
through Mysia in the natural course of things (cp the case of
Ephesus). W. J. W.
MYSTERY. In the religious life of the ancient world
in its period of decline, perhaps the most characteristic
1. General. feature was the ardour of its craving after
the mysterious. Conscious weakness and
failure of self-reliance were betrayed in the comfortless
gloom that followed every attempt to peer beyond the
lowly round of everyday life. The questions whence life
comes and whither it goes had to be answered a t any
cost ; but men despaired of being able to reach such
answers, each for hintself by his own unaided thought.
Resort was, accordingly, had to the mysteries-those
secret cults, some of them of hoary antiquity, others as
recent as Christianity itself, in which, with a lavish
employment of symbolism, the candidate for initiation
received the desired instruction from the duly conse-
crated priest (hierophant), and was provided with sacra-
mental guarantees extending both to this life and to the
next. There was hardly a deity in connection with
whose service some subsidiary cult of this sort did not
arise ; a cult in which the chosen ones-for admission
was not a matter of course-strictly marked off from
outsiders, and, keeping scrupulously secret the know-
ledge imparted a t initiation, in spite of many follies and
excesses, preserved a certain vitality for the pagan
religion. These guilds were themselves called mysteries ;
so also were the secret doctrines imparted within them ;
finally, and above all, the methods of symbolism and
allegory, by means of which philosophical or religious
and ethical instruction was obtained from the old myth-
ologies, to meet the wants of a new age, went by this
name.
The Wisdom of Solomon shows its author to have
been acquainted with this Greek institution ; in 1415 23
2. Jewish (cp 125) the origin of the mysteries is
writers. euhemeristically explained, but the exist-
ence of the inner mystery is not at all
denied ; in 222 allusion is made to the mysteries of God,
and in 8 4 wisdom is spoken of as ‘ one initiated (p6urcs)
into the knowledge of God.’ In marked contrast, how-
ever, with the heathen mysteriosophists, wisdom de-
clares to her hearers (622), who are by no means to be
regarded as a community of mystze, that she will
not hide mysteries from them, but will set forth in clear
light a full knowledge of the truth. I n a number of
passages in the LXX the word mystery is used in the
colourless sense of a secret idea or plan (e.g., in
2 Macc. 1321); but not only do we find 3 Macc. 2 3 0
speaking of one who has been duly consecrated in ac-
cordance with the prescribed ritual, but also in Dan.
218f. 27-30 46 (the last passage only inTheod.) the Greek
translation is obviously influenced by the religious
phraseology of the same heathen circles, when it speaks
would establish- that the verb GrrhStb vLth the accusative of
the country signifies ‘to make a missionary tour’; for here this
sense would be impossible, in the face of the prohibition of v. 6.
1 See, however, the judgment of Ramsay, St. Paul the
TraweZler, 19jJ ; Church in R . Enrp. 484.
io4 a 3249
MYSTERY
of Nebuchadrezzar’s vision as a ‘ mystery ’ which is ‘ re-
vealed’ to Daniel hy the God of heaven, to whom
alone this prerogative belongs. The dream as such is
not called a mystery; it is a mystery because it contains
a series of syntbols which yield up their deeper meaning
to interpretation and the allegorical method. Among
Jewish writers the great master in the art of allegorising.
so as to extract unsuspected meanings from the letter of
Scripture, is Philo.
When, for example, in De Chemh. 128, or in De Sacrlf:
d k l i e t Cuini, IS^, he sets forth his astonishing exegeses of
Gen. 4 I 15 6 he is a genuine hierophant or teacher of mysteries ;
and he h i m h f feels that he is such, using, as he does, of set
pur ose, the terminology of the mysteries. T h a t he does not
deaywith Orphic myths, does not alter the fact. He even openly
demands that what he is revealing be kept secret from all the
profane (De Cherub. 14), though, when he has occasion to dwell
on the contrast between Mosaism and heathen piety(De Victim.
ofev. i.J), he can allow himself to repudiate entirely all secret
initiations and mysteries, and to insist upon perfect straightfor-
wardness and honest publicity.
Christianity, in like v’---r, did not simply
. . repudiate
.
the influence of this ,,.-.ailing tendency of the age.
3. Christian. When the synoptists (Mt. 1311Mk.411
Lk. 8 IO) speak of the mysteries, or the
mystery, of the kingdom; a knowledge oiwhich is given
to some but withheld from others (see G NOSIS ), and
represent the parables as designed in some cases to
reveal, and in other cases to conceal still further, what
had hitherto been hidden, they can hardly be taken as
exactly reflecting the mind of Jesus on the matter, but
must be regarded rather as giving involuntary and un-
conscious expression to their own feeling on finding
themselves chosen for the honour of initiation. Perhaps
the writer of I Tim. 39 16 gives quite unconscious expres-
sion to the same feeling when he speaks of Christ as
the mystery of godliness, or instead of the faith speaks
of the mystery of the faith. As for the Apocalypse, it
is almost entirely made up of mysteries, and it is sur-
prising to find it only once (107) calling attention to a
fulfilment of the mystery of God.
T h e usage in 120 17 5 7, where the word mystery is employed
to denote a figure, such as that of the seven stars, which requires
interpretation, comes near Eph. 5 32, where Gen. 2 24 is called a
great ‘mystery,’ because it has to he understood not literally of
a man and his wife, but allegorically of Christ and the Church.
Most interesting of all is the attitude of Paul. In
2 Thess. 27, indeed, when he speaks of the mystery of
iniquity or lawlessness as already at work,
4. but still restrained by one that restrains
(6 K W ~ X W V : A NTICHRIST , 7), ‘mystery’ is used
merely as a synonym for something still hidden and
invisible as against the manifestation shortly to occur.
On the other hand, when in I Cor. 1 5 5 1 he intro-
duces a piece of his characteristic gnosis concerning
the last day aith the words, ‘behold, I tell you
a mystery,’ one feels that here he is a mystagogue
speaking to a circle of m y s t z ; and in the many pas-
sages where he introduces the idea of ‘ a mystery ’ in
connection with the gospel he proclaims, the deriva-
tion of his language from the mysteries so eagerly
resorted to by the heathen who were seeking salva-
tion can hardly be mistaken. H e who in the spirit
speaks with tongues ( I Cor. 142) utters mysteries ; in
I Cor. 132 ‘all mysteries and all knowledge’ (gnosis)
sum up the highest conceivable attainment of human
learning-it i s precisely what is hidden from others that
is known to the true gnosttc ; and in I Cor. 41 Paul
claims to be recognised by all, not only as a servant of
Christ, but also as a steward of the mysteries of God.
It does not signify that elsewhere he always speaks in
the singular of the mystery of God or of Christ or of the
gospel-in some cases even without the added genitive
-as, for example, in Col. 22 4 3 126 Eph. 6 19 349 Rom.
1625 : in all cases he intends the saving purpose of God
whereby in the fulness of the times redemption i s offered
to all men, Jews and Gentiles alike, in Jesus Christ-
the single plan of salvation, which, however, is carried
out in a multiplicity of saving deeds. This purpose of
3250