Sie sind auf Seite 1von 29

RPU

Latham’s curiouo volume The Xiwn Master, ~ 9 0 0 ;and Orr’s


Christian View o God and the World, 1893~Leg. 6, n. C, REUBEN
Similarly, but u d s ecial bearing upon the narratives as part
of the bioeraohv of &us :--*&’airbairn’s Studies in tlts Life of Mention 5 I). Other stories (5 6),
Christ, &~,‘ct$p. f8; G, H. Gilbert’s Stu&nfs’ L@ die&, (s
A lost trite z), Na:(%I 7-91 .
Meaning of stories (0 IO).
1898, pp, ,385;40,5 ; besides the Lives of Chnst by Farrar, Eder, First-born (g 3).
sherm, an S J Andrews (ed. 1892, pp. 589J). The subject is plhah, Bohan (5 4). Genealogies (5% 11.~3).
competently handled also though from a-more strictly philo- Altar ’ story (B 5). Lists of cities (k 14).
sophical and doctrinal sthpoint, by *Newnim Smyth (Ofd Reuben I is repeatedly mentioned in the Hexateucb
F d h s in Nerv Light, chap, 6); *D, W. Forrest (The Chnk#
of Hist. and Experience 1897 Lect, 4 critique of vision- as a branch of Israel. i t is often associated with Gad,
hypothesis)‘ R. H. H&on (TheoZ. Essays ($1 1888 pp. 1. lylcntim and is known to each of the documents
131 J); E.’ Griffith-Jones (The Ascent fhro&-h C h h , M underlying the Hexateuch. T h e reader
1900, pp. 337-359)’ H. G..Weston (Bi6lioth, S e a 1900,
p. 356-362) nnd L.’ S, Potwin (ilia‘. 189, p p 177-r905; also naturally infers that the writers of those documents had
f y *Denney (The Death of Christ, 1902, pp. 6 6 3 76 J: 121- knowledge of such a community. He may indeed think
123). it prudent to test the legitimacy of that inference, when
At the opposite pole of radical criticism the most noteworthy he misses references elsewhere in the Hebrew writings.
works along this line are *E, W. Macan’fi)Ths Resurrection of
yesus ChrFsf, the contributions of Dr. E. A. Abbott (cp Philo- Still, the argumenturn esll‘entio must be used with great
christus, Onesimus, and ThrouKh Nature to Chnst, 1877 care.2 The facts seem to be these. Outside of the fixed
chap. 21), and Martineau’s Seat of.Authority in Religid tribal lists (in Chron., Ezek., and, in the NT, in Rev,)
((91, 1890), 363Jr 481J, 63aJ besides the writings to be cited
below. and the Chronicler’s g e n e a l o g i e ~ ,Reuben
~ is known,
( h ) Examinations of early Christian evidence, and articularly apart from an at best anachronistic gloss in z K. 7 0 33
of the gospel narratives (with that of the ascension %cts 1 5-111, (descriptive of the district harassed by Hazael), through
from a fairly free but reverent standpoint -;be fouud in the mention in the enumeration in Judg. 5 (u. 1 5 f . j .
A. B. Bruce’s Expos. Gk. Test. vol. i. (PI, r y r ) , 330$, 643J ;
G. L. Cary’s scholarly Synoptic Gosp. (Internnt. Handbks. to That chapter contains very old material and few will
NT, vol. i., 1900)~Sg 198.20~: J: Estlin Carpenter‘s First question its authority even when it stands alone. Only,
T h e e Gosp. (PI, 1893)) 319f., &E$, A. C. McCigert’s AposL however, if we are sure that the passage says what the
Age, ~ 8 9 7 ,pp. 36-44, %f;, and J. V. Bartlet’e Apout. 4g8,
I w, pp. 1-10. see, further, Blair’s Ajost. Go@. (377.385) on poet meant it to say. That, however, does not
tze conclusion’of Mk., with the editions by Swete and Allan appear to have been questioned, so far as the mention
Menzies, Moffatt’s Hist. New Testament (PJ, rgor), of Reuben is concerned.‘ Discussion has been Con-
(on M k . I B g - ~ ) , 6 4 7 - 6 ~ ( o n M t , a n d L k . ) , 6 9 4 6 9 6 ( 0 n ~fined
~ . ~ ~ ~to~ ~the
~ ~ question, where the mention appearing
and A. ,Ebvijle’sarticle in y~vlyorld, 1894, pp. 496-527. The
distinctive aim of such contributwns is to investigate not simply after 1 5 u and again, in a slightly variwt form,
the verbal contents of the narratives in question, but also their after 16a really belongs. Stlll, is not the simplest ex-
mental and religious presuppositions; to get behind the storiaa piaqatiop of the double occurrepce, that the clause is
into the world of their first husrers, with thsj beliefsand hopes.
Extreme forms of this sritisal hypobsis are variously re re. really a gloss f Other diflculties would thus be removed.
sented in such works as *W. Mackintosh‘s P a t . FZisi. ?the It always seemed strange that 50 remote a community
Chvistian RaZigion, 1694, pp. 257.346 (mythical theory), ”Jupcr- a5 the traditional Reuben should be mentioned by narne.F
riaturd ReZi~%3, r877, p. 3991: (in which, as in the fallow7 To speak of Gilead in general, on the other hand,
ing book, the rdblem is handled drrntically, but uncritically
isolated), The 8 o u r Cosp. as w#foricnl Becwds, 1895, pp, 457, without naming tribes, would be natural. Later,
and 0. Cone, The Gosp. and zts Ea,li#st Interpretations, $893 Gileads would be taken to mean Gad, whilst Machir
pp., I Z ~ J , zoox, none of which, however, c y be pronounced was perhaps referred to ‘haif-Manasseh,’ and ro a
enrrrely satirfwtw, either in method or in results, See
further A. Drvidson’s NrlnfrUdR (1S94)2 sqj; Thq Gpposite reference of some kiqd or other wouid be made 90 the
suie 14 pleasantly hut incffeotively advocated by writers like margin to Reuben. If It be thought that probability is
Pnrves (Chriktianify in Apo&fp(icA p , I-, g r 5 ) and Swday in favour of thr: reTerence in Judg. 5 belng contemporary
(Hastings’ DB’26xa-643), while it is defended with a really evidence,‘ the prob!em before us is to determine where
critical grasp of the problem and it6 bearings by ‘Swete
(Apostles’ Crred, 1894, *A. B. Bruce (Apologetics, Reuben lived and to explain the fact that in historical
1892, pp. 383397); Schaff&22Church, 1 I ~ z - I ~ )*Denney . times Reuben had no sigsiflcance. If the other view is
(art. Ascension in Hastings’ DB 1161.16~) and ‘Prof. S, takeu, the probrem is to accoupt for the references in
McComb (Expos.(6l 4 350-363. a critique of E?? of Harnack’s
Wescn); see also *Knowling : Tlu Witness o/ tlu Ejirtles, the Hexateuch.
1892, pp. 365-396, 3gp+14(ascension) ; A. Hovey (Amer. Yourn. A survey of the references (in the Hexateuch) t o
Thad., 1900, pp. 536554, a critique of Stapfer): W. P. Adeney Reuben suggests that the solid element in them all is
(Exp0r.P)8 137-146, a critique of WeizsScker) : N. J. D. White
(‘Appearances of Risen Lord to Individuals ’ Expor.(~llO66.74) the belief that there once was an important .
and E. R. Bernard (‘The Value of the kscension,’ Ex.,+.T: a’ A lost community called Reuben and that for some
IF-rgor, pp. 152.155, and in Hastings’ ,DB 423.4). Despite tribs* reason it had lost its place ; it was a sort of,
exaggerated statements upon both sides, recent English discus, ’Ad or Thamtid, It i s usually supposed that tradition
sions display a growing sense that there is a serious problem
to be faced in the condition of the historical records, and that preserved the memory of a more or less definite geo-
exegefis has a vivid if subsidiary part to play in its solution. graphical district occupied by Reubenites. It may have
This is a sign of health, if ooly that the demands of the public done so. T h e evidences of such a tradition, however,
are becoming more exigent : but no advance can bs looked for are far from copious. Most of what we are toId about
until English students are furnished with a scientific equipment
in the shape of thoroughly critical editions of the pspels, as a territory of Reuben is in D (Dt. 31116 4 4 3 Josh. 13
well as with monographs combining historical judgment and 6-12) and P (much of Nu. 32 Josh. 13 15-23 208 21 3 6 f . }
sound scholarship with some philosophic and religious appreci. and cannot safely be used for the present purpose (see
ation of the subject.-j. ~ o . 1 P. w. s.
14). m e r e seems to be only one passage (Nu. 32
REU (9Y.r ; paray), b. Peleg, a name occurring in
the genealogical table connecting Shem and Abraham 1 00 the name see bebw : on the form, 8 8 ; nn OT explana-
(Gen. 1118-21 [PI, I Ch. 125 ; cp Lk. 3 3 5 , AV Ragau). tions, 8 7.: on real meaning, S 9.
An Aramsan tribe bearing the name Ru’ua appear in 7 Specla1 caution is needed an regard to questions bearing on
S. Babylonia in the time of Tiglath-pileser 111. (Schr, the tribes.
3 On the statements in I Ch. 5 see 5 13. On I Ch 1142 see
K G F I o s J ? ; KATM 117; Del. Pay. 2 3 8 J ? ) ; but R 13 (end).
thkir identification with Reu is denied by Schr. (Zoc. cit. ). 4 Wiucklcr bas suggested that ‘Asher’ is not a tribe name
The name, in common with the others in the same list, but a pronoun (l@ and that
), ’Dan’ was not mentioned
is probably Mesopotamian, and we may possibly find originally ( G I 2 134, no. 26-K).
course Reuben may have been settled in West Palestine
a trace of it in a -, one of the kings of Edessa, at5theOftime referred to(see next note). but thepastoral character
which is doubtless for ‘ m a n of Re’u,’ a formation assigned to the tribe in theclause probably shows that its author
thought of the East (cp GAn, g 11; first small type par.).
parallel to the Heb. h j ~ y (cp i Duval, ‘ Hist. d’l?desse,’ 6 Steuernagel suggests (Einmanderung, 20) that the mention
Yourn. A s i n i . , , 1891. 18126). Re‘u may have been an of Gilead, not Reuben in v. Ia may be because Buuben wag
old Mesopotamian god (Mez, Gesch. der Stadt e a r n i n , still seated in W. Palesiine (see 6elow g IO).
7 It would not decide the auestion’ where Reuben lived (see
23). Cp RYUBEN,6s Q iii.,IO. F. B. preceding two notes).
4087 4088
REUBEN REUBEN
37f. ) which can perhaps be attributed to J (see, how- Reuben’s deed has been suppressed by R.* It can be
ever, Oxf. Hex.). All it has to say is that certain six inferred, however, from the ‘ Blessing of Jacob ’ : a
(Moabite) towns were, in the Mosaic age (?) ‘ built ’ by Reuben 1 thou wast my first-horn
the sons of Reuben (see below, 5 14). The absence of My might and the first-fruits of my manhood ;
any reference to a people called Reuben in the Mesha Exceeding in impetuosity,a exceeding in passion I
inscription although it mentions three of the six towns Foaming like water 4.. .
For thou didst ascend thy father’s couch.
and refers to ‘ the men of Gad ’ as having ‘ dwelt in the Then did I curse the bed5 he ascended.6
land of ‘AtBroth from of old (&n) ‘ seems to require us Even without Gunkel’s emendation of the last line it is
to suppose that the statement of J , if not unhistorical, plain that the sequel to Gen. 35 2 2 was a father’s curse,’
rests on a memory of days long gone. That there was which brought doom on the tribe (cp B LESSINGS A N D
a firm belief in an ancient Reuben is, indeed, clear. C URSINGS). The effect becomes still more clear in the
The point is that it need not imply a knowledge of ‘ Blessing of Moses ‘ :
where it had been settled. In Gen. 35z1$ J seems to
connect Reuben with West Palestine (see § 4), and even Let Reuben live (on), let him not die (out) !
Still, let him8 become a (mere) handful of men I 9
in P there seems to be a trace of a belief of the same
kind (Josh. 1 5 6 181$ 5 4),which may be represented T h e story of Bohan the son of Reuben may have
in the strange story of the ‘ altar ‘ (5 s), and in the idea been connected with the same legend (cp NAPHTALI,
that Reuben crossed into West Palestine to help the col. 3330 foot). W e ought perhaps, however, to trans-
other tribes to effect a settlement (cp G AD , col. 1585). h i e the word ‘ bohan.’ T h e landmark would then be
Whatever was thought of the place where Reuben the thumb-stone1° of the son (or sons [BBL in Josh. 18171)
-
had lived, a great deal of interest was felt in his fate of Reuben. T h e suggestion made elsewhere (col. 535
5. First-born. (cp I O ). Reuben is everywhere the n. 4), however, is perhaps better: the suggestion, namely,
first-born (see end of 6). In E indeed that there is a slight corruption of the text, and that we
there was perhaps an interval of cousiderable length ought to read : stone of the sons of Reuben ( * i ii3n
between him and Leah’s other sons : Naphtali seems p i x i : reading $13 for 11 rai, as j a j might be a trans-
to be for E Jacob’s third son (cp NAPHTALI,3 2). posed n13=m). ’ ’

Whether this was so in the original J we cannot say : The reading of GHLin Josh. 18 17 would support this
it would account for Reuben’s being the finder of the view. I n its favour is the ease with which it could be
dzidd’im ( i b . ) , l which E does not mention. In J as we into connection with a story
Josh.22 which
6.‘altar., broughtis otherwise perplexing. The stone
have i t , however, Reuben has three own brothers when
he finds the dzidd’ivz which lead to the birth of Joseph (or was it really a group of stones?) in
(cp ZEBULUN). The only tale E has to tell about question was near ‘ Geliliith ’ (Josh. 18 17 : see G ILGAL ,
Reuben is of how he tried to deliver Joseph 3 (Gen. 5 6 6 ) . Now it was at the ‘Geliliith’ of the Jordan
3722 29), and reminded his brothers of the fact (4222 ; that, we are told, there was erected a sacred object to
see below, $ I O , end), and how he offered his own two which was given a name that has been lost (see ED,
sons (cp I I ) as a pledge of the safe return of Benjamin. GALEED, 2). T h e present text of Josh.22 leaves it
T h e most significant point in all this is that Reuben was uncertain on which side of Jordan the sacred erection
the first-born. On that point there seems to be com- stood, and it ascribes the building to Reuben and Gad
plete agreement. The problem is discussed in I Ch. (and half Manasseh !). Perhaps Gad is an addition l1
51J The view of the writer of that passage is that connected with the view that the stone was east of the
Reuben forfeited his right (as first-born) to the special Jordan. No doubt the object was not an ‘ altar,’ but a
blessing, which fell to Joseph, wbo’thus became two massEbZh or a circle of stones (see G ILGAL , 5 I ) , and
tribes, although his rival Judah ultimately outdid the story12 may be connected in some way with an
The rest of the points may belong to the decking out attempt to account for the loss of Reuben’s status.13
of the story (see, however, below, 5 I O , end). The suggestion just made gains, perhaps, in plansi-
Not so in the case of what J has to tell us in Gen. bility from the fact that in E, and probably J , there is
3522. No doubt the story was once told with more another story that may have served the same purpose
(Test. Reub. 3 and Jubilees, (next 5).
4’ Bilhsh’ pg,l:how how it cduld be done).T In the older parts of Nu. 16 the leaders of Reuben
This story seems to be J’s explanation of how Reuben (see below, 5 I O ) dare to challenge the authority of
lost his rank. What Jacob did when he heards of Moses and thus bring divine judgment on
6’ Other themselves. It is even possible that there
1 According to Stucken (‘ Ruben im Jakohssegen ’ in MVG stories‘ was still another story of the same kind (see
for 1902,446-72. which appeared after this article was in type) below, § I O [I]). These stories, as they attribute to
the finding of the dridri’im was ascribed to Reuben as a patri-
archal eponym on a level with Jacob. Later syncretism made
him Jacob‘s son. 1 According to Stucken (above, col. 4089, n. I ) various
2 Steuernagel suggests (Einwamfemng, 17) that in the analogies suggest that Israel castrated Reuben for his crime
original story what Reuben did wa5 not to make over thedzididn’im (‘eye for eye, etc.’), 53.
to Leah hut to use them to win the favour of Rachel or rather 2 On this passage see n. 5.
Bilhah, whence Bohan (cp N APHTALI, $ 1s). This is very 3 Read perhaps ilk? with Gunkel.
ingenious, but does not explain the ohvious relation of the
diidd’Zi’im to Issachar and Joseph. According to Stucken (see 4 MT lgin i !, obscure ; see Stucken, MVG, I ~ M p. , 171.
preceding note) Reuben’s incest was with Leah herself, who 6 Read perhaps ‘p; with Gunkel. For some interest-
may at one time have been called Bilhah. ing suggestions as to the original purport of the passage see
8 It is probable that in Gen. 37 21 (J) ‘Reuben’ is redactional Stucken (as in col. 4089, n. I ), 46-52.
for Judah. See next note. 6 According to ]ubilees? 5 33 7 g, and Test. Reu6., Bilhah
4 In the Joseph story the leader is Judah in J, Reuben in E became taboo to Jacob henceforth.
(cp preceding footnote) ; cp Steuernagel, Einwandemng, 34. 7 Gunkel compares Iliad, 9 4 4 7 3 (Amyntor’s curse [455,?1
2 According to Guthe, G V I 42, Reuben’s hegemony belonged on his son Phoinix for a deed similar to Reuben’s).
to the time preceding the settlement of the Rachel tribes (cp 8 On the reference of this to Simeon in B A L see SIMEON, 0 3.
R A CHE L , I I 6). Those tribes which acknowledged his leader- 9 Cp Ball PSBA IS 122 (1895) : 1 5 *no. ~ ~
ship were called Leah ; the later (Rachel) tribes acknowledged 10 In Ass;rian there is no conscious metaphor in the use of
the hegemony of Joseph. &&tu in this way.
6 Against the suggestion of Dillmann and Stade ( G V f 1 151) 11 c p 0.7 246 6 1 3 r c h d 6 0 . 7 6 ~ 0 sr r a p i 7bv ‘Iop&ivqv, &ea
that the story implies more primitive morals in the half-nomad Buoraun+ptov Eaquarr a i u b i ‘Pou@v.
Reubenites, see Holzinger, ad Lor. 12 On the geographical import of this and the preceding story
7 Later writers refvsed to believe the story (cp the case of see $
SIMEON [a 9 i, end ; see also S 41). In Targum (Ps.-Jon. ad roc.), IO.
13 Does the story in Josh. 22 contain a reference to the name
Midrash (Gen. ra66a 98 ,E), Talmud (Shdb. 55 b), and Bk. of
Jashar, Reuben only disturbed a couch (cp Charles, Iubilees, Reuben : see a. 28 7 W n.i?n-nfc Wl ( r Z . ..
[talhn[ithl)
5 33. n. z and $ 33 I 6).
Through angels, according to Test. Reub.
and v.
[IemaIr’E)Y
IO anins ... h i nma 1131 ([wayyilbnfi ...
4089 4090
REUBEN REUBEN
Reuben an importance which there is nothing in history of the En in YardEn is not necessary. Reuben might be
to suggest, may be due to a tradition of conflict between a name on the analogy of SIMEON (I 8 i.). GIDEON, etc.
some representative Israelitish clan and a Reubenite Reuben would then be a case of the kind referred to
community. On the other hand, they may be simply by Barth, NB, p. xxix, n. I, in which the termination
popular or other stories designed to explain the sup- instead of preserving its old vowel d (as in ?uZ&-n ; not
posed collapse of a Reuben people. Sulhfin, to avoid concurrence of rounded ' vowels)
T h e real cause of Reuben's disappearance may have changed it to 21 (cp !h$ instead of gks, for earlier
been the inroad of Moab, which was perhaps not so Ny).
early as to prevent a vague memory of what had pre-
s
ceded from surviving (see G AD , 11, col. 1585,mid. and
ii. Some also of the explanations assuming the last
consonant to be 1 take the name to be simple. Ball
cp MOAB,J 14, col. 3174,foot). On the other hand,
derives it from the root r ' b 2 which in Arabic means to
there is the possibility that Reuben's abode was not
repair,3 comparing the noun ra'iib which is applied
really in the east. W e have found several hints of a
metaphorically (ZamabSari, Asris acc. to Lane, hut not
belief that Reuben had been west of the Jordan (see
in Cairo ed. ) to describe one as a rectifier of affairs4
further, below, I O ), to which we shall return (I I O ) in
Lagarde suggested (OSPJ 367 f.)that Reuben, or
the light of the considerations suggested by a study of
rather Re'Bben, is to be identified with Ru'ridil shortened
Reuben's name.
The meaning of the name Reuben is not apparent. from Ru'dbiZ, plural of Ri'bBI, a lion (or wolf).6 Ac-
cording to the Tiij eZ-'Arzis the rayri6iZ of the Arabs
There seem to be traces of more than one explanation.
were those ' who used to go on hostile expeditions upon
., OT i. J (Gen. 2932U) takes it to mean
'YahwB looks at my affliction' and
their feet [and alone].'
Of name* According to Ibn Sida the Andalusian (M&um6)
finds in it a reference to what Leah
'some say that ri'b81 means also one who is the only
had had to bear as the hated wife ( ~ p ?33 : see
; v.
offspring of his mother7 [Le. opp. of twin : el-BustBni].'8
Gunkel ad la.). ii. E (Gen. 29326), on the other hand, Another suggested origin is ' Jerahmeel '.( JUDAH, 3);
sees a reference to some point in the conduct of Jacob : cp R EU [see C d . Bi6.1.
' my husband will . . . me.' iii. Others hold the name to be compound. ( a ) T h e
MT reads 'will love me'. but it is difficult to believe that first element is taken by older writers to be rB'ii in the
this is sound. The versions' indeed, agree (&ya+er, amabit;
narham [Pesh.]) with M T ;'but so slight a change would make sense of 'face' (Kohler, Der S e w z Jucods, 27 [1867];
the word chime with Reuben ( q > n ~:*[>iNi) that it is natural to Kue. Th. T 5 2 9 1 [1871]), or r2';in the sense of flock '
suppose that it must have done 50.1 Gunkel suggests as the (Redslob, D i e A T I i J e n Namen, etc., 86 [1846]); by
original a word cognate with the Aramaic l i i ~ 'to, praise.' later writers to be rB'ii9 in the sense of ' fnend ' (Kerber,
The Reubenites are in the traditions so hard to distinguish from D i e ReL-gesch. Bedartung der Ned. -Eigennamen des
the Gadites that E may well have connected with the name
Reuben a wish like that expressed in Dt. 3320 (71 >.n,a) with A T , 70) or rather as a divine namelo (see below,
regard to Gad : ' he will make me spread forth ;or, since the J IO). (6)T h e second half was identified by Nestle
subject is ' husband ' not ' Yabwk,' might we give the word its (Zsra~Z. Eigennumen, 1876) with Bin (=Bir, Bur), by
Arabic meaning and render ' welcome me '?a
others (Redslob, 1846; Kohler, 1867 ; Kue.. 1871 ;
iii. Josephus explains Roubel, P o u p ~ h o s(Ant. i. 1 9 7 ) , Houtsma, 1876 ; Wi., GZ 1120 n. z ) with Bel.
his form of the name (see 8). by saying that Leah felt T h e theory that Reubel contains the names Reu and
she had experienced the mercy of God (6167L K ~ T ' %ov Bel seems to merit consideration. A parallel forma-
al?'T$700 &OG $V0L70).3
lo. lyTeaning tion'l is the name Keu-el.la When one
It is not certain what the last consonant of the name of stories. remembers the peculiar mystification that
8. Form has occurred in connection with the names
of name. Is' The traditionalformsarepN1; pou&v[BADEFL], Hoball)Jethro 11 Reuel one is led to ask, May not there
-Pew [Gen. 42 22 37 El - @ ~[L p in z K. 10 33 Ch. ; E be some connection between Reu-el and Reii-bel?lS
in Gen. So 141, povSw I Ch. 5 I 3 [ i l , Joseph. -&hos, 4 7 3, 5 166 There is, in fact, notwithstanding the difference in the
var. pouj3rp; Syr. tlibil; Vg. Ruben; eentilic Reubenite
-:2?Nl, in C3 not usually distinguished fromihe 'personal ' form, tone of the narratives, a strange parallelism between the
but I Ch. 11 42 povj3qvi [Ll, 2632 pw,3qv[sl~[BA], Josh. 22 I pou- critical attitude adopted towards Moses by Reu-bel in
@pvirai [A] ; Josephus, oi povj3qvwar, $ pou@qArs +uAG. the earlier story in Nu. 16 and that adopted by Moses'
The explanations adduced already (J 7) imply that
the final consonant was early pronounced as n ; but to which has been noticed (e.g., by C. Niebuhr, E&. Zeifgzsch.
250 [18941, and, without approval, by Ball, SBUT[1896]), cannot
Hos.415 5 8 1 0 5 make it probable that in the case of plausibly be connected with Reuben : it is of course a personal
Bethel the n which has established itself in the modern name, and is doubtless to be read Whn-re' ('rising of RE"), not
local pronunciation (Beitin) took the place of Z early.4 Ra-uben.
1 After this article was finished the writer noticed that Barth
The real origin of the name is unknown. i. On the himself makes this very suggestion (NB 320, end of long note)
view that the final letter was n . Baethgen (Beitr. 59, with the same examples.
9. lY[eaning.1888)connects with the Arabic Ru'ba= 2 Cp the personal name 5 ~ 2 in~ the 1 inscription from Sfid,
Rubat-is ( C I L 8 2415), comparing the end- Hal. 353, 1. I .
3 The advent of Reuben was to reconcile Jacob to Leah.
ing @n in Yarden (EV ' Jordan'), and so, before him, 4 It is to ra'b, not, as Ball seems to imply, to ra'rib, that the
Land (De Gids, Oct. 1871. p. 21)who is reminded of metaphorical meaning of 'big, bulky, portly, or corpulent chief'
Arab. ra'ad. T h e inscription, Glaser 302. from is assigned in the KZmlis and the Tdj'eL'AnZs.
5 He compares Aroer, plural of 'Ar'Sr (cp above, col. 317, n. I).
Hadaksn, speaks of a tribe ] X N ~ ~ ' I >(CIS 4 no. 37, 6 Quoted by Lane, ad voc.
Z. 5),sons of R b n ' , 6 vowels unknown. The comparison 7 man ialiduhu u m m u h r wa+a?ahu.
8 Reuben was the first-born of Leah. Rebecca had twins.
1 On the other band, we must remember that the old etymo- 9 On the softening of gutturals when r or loccurs in the same
lo ists were easily content (cp Gunkel). wordsee Wi. AUF12a7 G l l a r o n . 4, 120, n. 2.
5 The most obvious derivation ' Behold !a son' is passed over : 10 Cp Duval, Rev. Ai. 8th Ser. 18 126 [18911; A. Mez, Gesch.
d Sfadt pan-& 23 [18921. Cp the male proper name Ra-'-u
names with imperatives (Olshaus. Lehrb. 6r3) common in
Assyrian, were probably not in use among the'Hebrews (cp in one of the tablets containing deeds of sale, barter, and lease
Gray, HPN 65J). Gesen. thought of '9x7 in the sense of with Phcenician dockets in 3 R. 46 14 d (no. 8, 1. 11). Ru-'-a is
the name of an Aramaic tribe mentioned in the clay tablet
' provided.' The GZossre Colbertinre gives Povpqv, dpiuv uidc inscription of Tiglatb-pileser 111. 2 R.677, Ru-'-ma a tribe
(Lag. OSPJ). mentioned twice in Sennacherib's clay prism I R. 37 44 41 36.
3 Did he think of h+ ' 9 K l (? of agent: cp Targ. Jon. 11 Reu-bel and Reu-el were cited as similar tribe-names by
Houtsma, ' Israel en Qain,' Th. T 10 9.f: (1876). Cp Skipwith,
+$nhy "-me: >>?>, or possibly $! mnl? 247, 251 [18991.
4 Cp Barth, Efym. Stud., 5 19.
6 Cp D X N ~ZDMG 26425 TSBA 6199.
'9fG Jehi-el in I Ch. 27 3z=z S. 23 8 Ish [read yS?: Mar-
quart /QR 14 344 n. I] -baal.
6 A name'occurring several times in the Turin papyrus as 13 $he root i n * Uethro) occurs thrice in the 'blessing ' of
borne by kings of the thirteenth Egyptian dynasty, a resemblance Reuben in Gen. 49 3f:
4091 4092
REUBEN REUBEN
h&hZn (inn ; see J ETHRO, second paragraph) in Ex. 18 : flourished son e time, and the judgment that the belief
' What is this thing that thou doest to the people? Why was probably justified.l
sittest thou thyself alone, and all the people stand about It must be remembered that if Reuben really lived
thee from morning unto evening? ... T h e thing that east of the Jordan there may have been many traditions
thou doest is not good ' (Ex. I 8 1 4 17). which failed to find a place in the literature of Western
Whatever be thought of the particular parallelism Palestine (cp G AD , 5 11). On the other hand, it will
just referred to and its bearing on the question of the not be surpri!;ing if additional reasons should be found
name Reuben, it is surely suggestive in regard to the for connectin: Reuben with the southern tribes (cp
general Reuben-problem that we should have a com- SIMEON, 8 8 i i. ).
munity of no historical importance, but held to be the Reuben wa!, believed to have had two sons. In the
first-born of Israel, into connection with which it is Joseph
. . story ndeed he bad on& two ( ' m y two sons'
possible to bring a whole series of stories' differing Gen. 4237 [E]) ; and even there it is
altogether in details, but coinciding in the fundamental ll. the death of the two sons that is
point of setting Reuben in some form in opposition to thought of. In Nu. 16 two sons of Reuben are buried
the recognised representatives of Israel :- alive (1631 3 3 4 J ; 3za 336, E). They are called
I. the criticism of Reuel (Ex. 18) Dathan2 and Abiram3 (cp Ps. 10617 Dt. 1 1 6 ) . Dathan
2. the discontent of the sons of Reubel (Nu. 16) is a strange name4 (reminding one of Dothan. the scene
3. the stone[s] erected by Reubel (Josh. 22) : cp stone of of Reuben's argument : see above, 3 I O , 6) ; but Abirani
Boha? .
4. the ambition2 of Reubel (Gen. 35 z z ) we know as a first-born son who was said to have been
5. the sacrilegious greed of Achar (Achan), if be was really a buried (alive?) in the foundation of a city. H e is said
Reubenite (see below g 12) to have been a son of HIEL [p.v.] h n ' 2 , whereas in
6. the disagreement brtwLen Reuben and the other sons of
Israel (at Dothan?),3 Gen.4222 [E] ['ye would not Nu. 16 Abirani is a son of Eliab ~h; but these ( h n ' 2
listen ').4 and >N"X' 2 ) are not impossible variants. Abiram's
W e may even find a seventh story when we proceed brother is called Segub in M T of I K. 1 6 3 4 ; but in I Ch.
to consider the Reubenite genealogy 5 (11). 221f. the clan called Segub ben Hezrou in M T is in
These stories seem to imply a widespread conviction 6"called Serug, which is in Gen. 11 20 a son of Reu (see
of the occurrence a t some time of a grave event or series below, § 1 2 , end). The mention of Hezron brings us
of events5 Such convictions are often due to actual to the stock genealogy of Reuben : Gen. 4 6 g = N u . 2 6 6
reminiscence of fact. It is possible even to go further =Ex. 6 1 4 = I Ch. 5 3 . In it there is, at least
and reconstruct a history thus :- 12' In .'
a t first sight, no trace of the famous two sons.
The Nu. 16 story (on the details see D ATHAN) implies, for In their stead we find four names : Hanoch, Pallu,
example, that Reuben disagreed with its associates at Kadesh Hezron, and Carmi. The first appears as a Midianite
and led its party northwards into Palestine. The attribution of clan in Gen. 2 5 4 (cp G AD , § 11, last small type para-
Hezron and Carmi clans both to Reuben and to Judah (see $ 12)
means that Reuben settled W. ofJericho in contact with Judah. graph), the second (+ahhous generally ; Jos. +ah[a]ous)
The Bilhah story (8 5 ) means that the Jacob-Rachel tribe spread appears in Nu. 1 6 1 as Peleth (+ah& [BAF]), which
southwards and had friendly relations with Reuben, but as suggests the Negeb (see PELETH); but bLgives + ~ E K -
Benjamin branched off, absorbing such elements as Bilhah had L e . , Peleg.5 The third and fourth (Hezron and Carmi)
left (see N APHTALI , S I ) when it migrated northwards, the
relaticns of Reuben towards Bilhah became less friendly, which appear also, as has been mentioned (§ IO), in a gene-
brought on Reuben a curse. The 'altar' story (Josh.22) means alogy of Judah. In the case of Hezron that seems
that the Joeephites of Shecbem took umbrage at the southern certain ; although whether the inferences that have been
Josephites (half Manasseh) for having a common sanctuary with
the Reuhenites, and this anger was afterwards supposed to have drawn from it -are warranted is a t least doubtful (CP
been against Reuben. The Datban and Abiram story means that M ANASSEH , 9, last small type, and above, § I O . end).
the Reubenites on their part rebelled against certain pretensions The Of is less secure' In I Ch' I Carmi
of the south-Josephite priests. Finally, Reuben crossed Jordan
and penetrated as a wedge into Gadite territory.6 I Ch. 221-23 may be a mistake for Caleb (We.
~ ad "OC' ), and
means that the Reubenite clan Hezronsubsequentlyunited with ' 26f., or at least 2 7 , is surely an interpolation. 2 7 might
Gileadite clans to produce Segub the father of Jair (CP just as well stand after 5 3 . On the other hand, in Josh. 7,
MANASSEH, 1 S g, last small type). although v. I may not be original, it is difficult to
The arguments for this reconstruction are set forth account for Carmi in n. 18 unless there was known to be
with skill by Steuernagel (Einwandemng). The result a Carmi in Judah, or the story was originally told of
is apn'ori plausible. Is there adequate warrant, how- Reuben, not Judah, as Steuernagel suggests (Einwan-
ever, for so high an estimate of the historical character demng, p. 19 [e]).
of the legends (cp B. Luther. Z A TW 19 I J? [1901] ; As we have seen, Dt. 11 5 mentions a 'son ' of Reuben
Wi. OLZ 2 1 1 7 8 , K A T(3) 213, etc.)? T h e questions , of the name of Eliab, who in Nu. 26s6 is introduced
involved are far-reaching
. . . .
and
.
intricate,
~.
and are better into the genealogy as a son of Pallu.
treated comprehensively than in relation to one particular
tribe (see T RIBES, and cp NAPHTALI,J I . begin.). 1 On the possihility of a connection between the Leah tribes
Here we may be content with the general conclusion that and the Habiri see NAPHTALI, 8 3 (sec. par.), SIMEON, $ 6 ii.
a Reuben of some importance was believed to have ZEBULUN.
2 Josephus (Ant. iv. 7 3, 8 166) reads 6aOaJl[oul.

1 The fate of 'Ad and Thamiid seems to have appealed to the


-2 T..-,...L..= in-,
\-"'.
J"3CpA.L."
:..
v - 8P - K X \ * A A ~ P ~ I I . . Ly-.."."",,.
I". 8 3 , '"Y,..U..I
rrl.nira..ri
AI....

4 Du-at-nu is a synonym of kuwudu, 'strong' (Del. Ass.


imagination of Mohammed. They are referred to in the Koran HWB 596 n, no. 36), and di-tu-nu is 'ein[starkes] Thier.'
together or apart, some twenty-one times. Cp the NT reference; Shalmanecer's Rlack obelisk (I. 16,) mentions receiving tribute
to Sodom. from a certain Da-ta-na, of HubuSkia (towards Urmia).
2 Cp the cases of Abner, Ahsalom, and Adonijah. 5 The passage in Judg. 5 referred to above (% 1)accentuates a
3 Steuernagel supposes that some actual conflict between strange arallelism between the Reubenites of the genealogies
Joseph and the Leah tribes occurred in the neighbourhood of and the gemites of Gen. 11IO :-
Fothan (Einzuunderung,97). Ifso, possibly Reuben sided with
Joseph.
4 It seems to be onlv a further illustration of the extra- 1
Gen.ll Reuben Judg. 5
ordinary confusion in <he stories about Reuben that in the
earlier reference, which appears also to be in E, the brothers did
listen (Gen. 37 2.3).
5 Stucken (above col. 4089 n. I ) finds a mythological refer-
ence in the Reube; saying :n Gen. 493. Reuben ( I/ Adam Serug ( 3 1 1 ~ ) Serug b. Hezron nipv (u. 16u)
It Behemoth) was a being who once had world power but lost it. (above, s 11)
He compares the description of Behemoth in Job 40 76 (p. 51) Abram Abiram (above, s TI)
and connects him with the sign Aquarius (p. 69). Otherwis;
WI. (11 z 59.
6 On the question when this might have occurred see the 6 NEMUEL ( Y ) who appears in Nu. 26gt as a third son
suggestion of Steuernagel (Ein?uunderung, 20) that it may be (the eldest) of Jfiiib: may come by mistake from n. 12, where he
connected with I Ch.5 IO (tbe Hagrites, temp. Saul). IS the eldest son of Sirneon.

4093 4094
REUBEN REZEPH
Dt. 11 Nu. 265-9 addition of K I R I A T H A I M .As~ noticed above ( 5 2). all
Reuben Reuben these six towns are Moabite in Is. 15, Jer. 48.
I This list is, however, ignored by P in his enumeration (Josh.
I
Eliab
Pallu+g
dab
2 0 8 ; cp Dt. 443, given by Moses) of the 'cities of refuge' and
(Josh. 21 36/=1 Ch. G78J [63J]) the 'levitical' [Merari]cities
' of the tribe of Reuben ' ('1 nnno) : BEZER(city of refuge.
I I Bozrab in Jer. 4824), J AHAZ (Jahzah in Jer. 48 21)) KEDEMOTH
I I
Datban Abiram Neiiuel1 Dathan Abiram
I I (perhaps for Kiriathaim [nini? for on,^?] mentioned in Jer.
4823), and MEPHAATH Uer. 481~1);but he confines himself to
cities assigned to Moab in Jer. 4s.
This (with omission of Nemuell) seems to be the
scheme followed in Nu. 161,as we have It appears In Josh. 13 15-23 P endeavours to define the territory
indeed to be complicated by Eliab and Peleth (for Pallu) of Reuben.
He gives him, besides the levitical cities just mentioned
being treated as unconnected, and Peleth being given a (Jahaz, Mephaath, Kedemoth= Kiriathaim?), two cities said in
son O N [ q . " ~ . ;] and this has been supposed to represent Nu.3234-36 to have been built by Gad (Aroer, Dibon), one
the version of J (e.g., Ox$ Hex.). assigned to Gad in Josh. 21 39, I Ch. 681 [&I (Heshhon), four
assigned elsewhere to Moah (MEDEBA, BAMOTH-BAAL BETH-
N u . 16 I [as in MT] BAAL- MEON BETH - JEsHlnzOTH), and the following) three :
ZERETH-SH~HAR (only here), ASHDOTH-PISGAH (also Dt.), and
Reuben BETH-PEON(the burial-place of Moses and scene of the Dt.
I discourses), but only one of the cities 'said in Nu. 81 37 f: to
I I have been built by Reuben (Sihmah).
Peleth Eliab The contradictions make it impossible to construct a
I I map. In general terms, however, what is claimed for
On I J Reuben lies within what is claimed for G AD (q.v. 5 3).
Dathan Abiram
See the map in Stade, GVZ 1, facing p. 149. C p
Josephus, however, says nothing of On, which may Steuernagel, Einwanderung, r g (5 ). n. w. H.
in Nu. 16 I be due to a marginal variant : the variant
represented by @ which reads as usual Abiron for REUEL (!JRlUy; pAroyHh [BADEL]). I. T h e per-
Abiram (see, however, O N ). sonification of a clan in Edomitc and Arabian territory,
The Chronicler has attached t o the Reubenite which, according to Winckler ( G I 1210). derived its
genealogy two appendices, one tracing the pedigree of a name from a divine name Re'u ( = w i in *NT SN, Gen.
chron. certain BEERAHto an otherwise un- I 6 1 3 and 1x1 in $11~1, Reube13 [true form of I I ~ N ~ ,
13. In known Joel4 ( I Ch.54-6), the other Reuben ?I). This explanation, however, is incomplete ;
perhaps a variant form of the same list (v. 71: ) : thus both V ~ S and W h i ~are, i judging from numerous
ZJ. 4 Joel D. 8 oel
analogies in badly transmitted names, corruptions of
Shemaiah 71. 8 dhema 5wani, (Jerahme'el), and the same origin naturally
Gog ( 2 ~ 3 D. 8 Azaz (rry) suggests itself for h i y i (Re'u'el). See, however,
Shiinei NAMI~S,5 47, and cp R EUBEN , 5 9. l n the genea-
2). 5 Micah
Reaiah logical system Reuel is both a son of Esau by
Baal b y 3 2). 8 Beh(yh) Basemath (Gen. 364 IO 13 17 I Ch. 1 3 5 37) and the
v. 6 Beerah D. 7 [Zelchariah father of Moses' father-in-law Hobab, Nu. 10- [J],
D. 7 Jeiel where ' Midianite' should perhaps be ' Kenite '' (Judg.
There is nothing t o show what led the Chronicler to 116 411). In Ex. 218 (@AL ro6op), ' Reuel' their father
connect these lists with Reuben (cp Gray, HPN 257f:), is puzzling. On the principles of literary analysis of
unless it be the reference to Tiglath-pileser (cp z K. documents we assume that Reuel is a harmonistic inser-
1529) and the geographical references in w. 9f. tion, ReueI being here represented by the redactor ( R )
With Shemaiab, Shimei, Sbema, and Zechariah may be com- as father of Zipporah. in order that HOBABCq.v.1 and
ared Shammua hen Zaccur the name given to the Reubenite JETHRO [ q . ~ . ]may both be brothers-in-law. For
'spy' (Nu.134) and Elieze; ben Zichri, David's ruler ( n E g X )
over the Reubehes (I Ch. 22 16). On the natural omission of consistency's sake the insertion ought also to have
a representative of Reuben from the list of dividers of western been made in v. 16, where originally Hobah (J's name
Palestine cp GAD1 I 1 3 (last sentence). On the list containing for the father-in-law of Moses) must have stood.6
Adinas &n Shiza)o(I Ch. 1142) see Gray, H P N z a g J , and cp 2. Father of ELIASAPH, a Gadite chief (Nu. 2 14 [PI). I n
D AVID , 0 I T (a) ii.
Nu. 114 also, Q has p w A where MT has i$Jrpl(DEWEL);
Whether or not there was also a theory of a tribe
so too in 7 42 47 1020.
Reuben which entered Palestine bv <
wav
,
of the Negeb. Y 3. A Benjamite (I Ch. 98). T. K. C.
14. hographical the prevailing theory of the present
details. Hexateuch and related passages was REUItIAH (npTm; p ~ p [A].
a -MA [DL]),
the
that Reuben arrived in E. Palestine concubine of NaHoR ( q . ~) .; Gen. 2'2 24.
from abroad, in close cpnnection with Gad (q.v., 5 11). XEVELATION, BOOK OF. See. APOCALYPSE.
T h e questions bearing on the real ~ h a r a c t e rorigin,
,~ and
history of the population of E. Palestine are best con- REZEPH (qy7 ; in Ki. P A ~ E I C[BLI, pa@ec[Bab],
sidered elsewhere (G AD , $5 1-4). All that is necessary -€e[A], in 1s. pa@ee [RQrng.l3 - € I C [AI, -sc [RQ"]),
here is to supplement what is said there (G AD , 5 12) mentioned by Assyrian envoys (temp. Hezekiah) among
with regard to the geographical details given, in other places destroyed by Sennacherib's predecessors,
indifference to each other, by the various Hexateuch ( z K. 1912 Is. 3712). It is usually identified with the
writers. ( m d t ) RaSappa repeatedly mentioned in the cuneiform
Of the nine towns asked for by Gad and Reuben in inscriptions (cp Del. Pur. 297, Schr. K A 2Y2) 327).
Nu. 3 2 3 we are told in 3237f: that the men of Reuben and the name has been found in the A m m a Tablets
[relhuilt the last five : H ESHBON , ELEALEH, S IBMAH ( B I O ) , in a letter from Tarhundaraus Arsapi to Amen-
(called Sebam in v. 3). NEBO, and BEON, with the hotep 111. of Egypt. With this place we may identify
1 See n. 6 on previous column. 1 Perhaps the lists did not originally agree. Kiriathaim
2 Cp Graf, Die GeschichfZicickm?Z~C&Y. 89 n. having in D. 37 the place occupied in w. 3 by Sebam,Sibma is
3 'and wz-that is to say, otherwise Ahiron.' Read: in v. 38 simply added at the end of the list.
Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab [and -on],the son of 2 Elsewhere only in Dt. 2 26, where it may he a corruption of
Paleth-Pallu the son[s] of Reuben. Kadesh : see KEDEMOTH.,
4 Kittel (ShOT [Heb.], 1895) follows Syr. and Arab. in 3 Houtsma ( T h o l . Tgdscib-. 1092) also compares Reubel.
reading Carmi ; but that may be an emendation (so Benzinger, Hommel however, reports a S. Arabian personal Lane S ~ i s i .
K H C ad lor.). 4 So BL., comm. on Judg. 11 6 . ,who assumes the harmonking
6 Pkha s late, cp ADIN; but cp also Jehddan. of an editor.
6 Probaby corrupt (@A ucxa). See SHIZA. 5 In Gen. 25 3 @ A E one of the sons of Dedan is called ReueL
7 Compare col. 4089 n. 6. @ D has pauov[~hl.

4095 4096
REZIA RHBOCIUM
the p7)oa$u of Ptol. (SIS), and the mod, RuSgfa, 34 m. 'ruler' [PRINCE, 131; We. Heid.C2)59, n. I , would
SW. of Sura on the Euphrates, on the road leading connect the name with the Ar. deity RudE in such
t o Palmyra. W e have no independent notice of the Palmyrene compound names as IYlD'Jl [servant of R.] ;
destruction of Reseph, and this, together with certain but may it not be miswritten for ]+Yl?), the founder of
other suspicious phenomena, has led the present writer a dynasty at Damascus, and a contemporary of Solomon
to the supposition that, as most probably in many ( I K. 11 23. ECPWM [B], om. A, cp H EZION ; razon
other passages, t h e editor has been busy in reconstruct- [Vg.]). Who Rezon was, is by n o means clear from
ing the geographical and historical background ; i . e . , our text (cp D AMASCUS , 5 7). Most regard him as a
that Goean ' has been put for ' Cushan ' (the N. Arabian northern Araniaean.
Cush), ' Reseph ' for ' Sarephath.' ' Telassar ' for ' 'Iel- Rezon is called however sou of Eliada which is a Hebrew
asshur ' or ' Tel-ashhur ' (cp ASHHUR j, ' Arpad ' for name, and Winckier's way df accounting fo: this (see ELIADA, 3)
' Ephrath.' Of the other names, ' Haran ' (cp I Ch. is improbable. Treating the subject in connection with ZOBAH,
q.v.1, we may venture to conjecture that he was probably a
2461, ' Eden.' Hamath ' (probably a popular distortion N. Arabian, and that his father's name, like ' Jedi'a'el' is a
of Maacath'j need not be corrupt ; they are good modification of ' Jerahme'el. It was from the king not of
N. Arabian border-names, familiar by tradition to Zohah hut of MiS8ur (Musri) that Rezon fled, and the capital of
the realm which he founded was not Damascus, hut Cusham
Judahite writers. S EPHAXVAIM [u.v.} is made up of (cp P ROPHET, S 37). We may presume that he was an ally of
Sephar (= Zarephath) and a fragment of ' and Jerah- Hadad, who was also an ' adversary' to Solomon, and appears
meel ' ; ' Hena' and ' I w a h ' also probably represent to have been king, not of Edoni, hut of Aram-i.r., Jerahmeel.
the place-name Jerahmeel,' unless Ivvah has been rnis- The geographical boundaries of these neighhouring kingdoms
we cannot determine ; hut they were close to the Negeh, which
written for ; cp bL,z K. 1834, Kai ?roc (ay:) d u b Solqmpn (see SOLOMON, B 7) appears to have succeeded in
oi B E O ~ 7 4 s p i p a s Zapupelus; p+ dfeIiavro 71; Zap. retaining. Probably they were both vassals of the natural
overlord of that region-the king of hlissur, whose daughter
CK X E L P ~ Spou ; see SEPHARvhIM, and cp Crit. Bib. became Solomon's wife. Cp, however, Winckler, G I 2 272,
The ironical remarks of Winckler (A T UnL 40) and Renzinger K A 7W 240. T. K. C.
( K h . 182) on the archzological learning of the late author of
a K. 19 r z J , which was, however, thrown away on the hearers BBEGIUM ( p H r l O N , Acts2813). A toq-n on the
of the supposed speech of the Assyrian envoys to Hezekiah, are Italian coast, at the southern entrance of the straits of
natural enough, if the accuracy of M T may he assumed. I t is
probable, however that even at a late date the people of Judah Messina (mod. Reggio).
would he able to'appreciate historical references hearing on The name (='breach ') was general1 supposed to hear refer-
places much nearer to them than Gozan, and Rezeph, and a ence to the idea that earthquakes or ti% long-continued actiou
Mesopotamian Tel-asshur. T. K. C. of the sea had broken asunder or breached the land-bridge
hetween Italy a@ Sicily (Straho, 2 5 8 ; Diod. Sic.485). The
BEZIA, RV Risia ( W Y l , 28 ; ' YabwB is gracious * Latin form of the name, Regium, gave riso to an absurd alterna-
for 333,or from some etbnic ; pac[f]l& [BAL]), in tive derivation (Straho, Z.C.).
a genealogy of ASHER(g.v., 5 4. ii. ), I Ch. 739. The town was an offshoot of the Chalcidians settled
on the other side of the strait, in hlessana (for a sketch
REZRI (]'Yl; P A A C C ~ N , PACEIN [B in 1s. 71, of its early history, see Strabo. 257f:). Its position on
~ A C C [B ~ Nin Is. 81, p a c i p ~[Aq., Sym., Th. in Q"g. in the strait mnde it very important, for the direct distance
Is. 83; Ass. Ra-sun-nu). If we take the M T as it to Messana is only a b u t six geographical miles, and
stands, it is evident that R a i n , king of Aram-damascus, under Anaxilas (about 494 B.C.) the two cifies were
in alIiance with Pehah of Israel, endeavotred to over- united under one seepfre. Although the Syracusaii
throw Ahaz, king of Judah, and to enthrone ben-T&b%l, tyrant Dionysim I. totally desfmyed the town, so
a creature of their own, in his stead. To escape from important a site cotlld not long Ife desolate, and it was
this danger, they applied for help to the Assyrian king repeopled by his son and successor. During the
Tiglath-pileser ( z K. 1 6 5 7 8 Is. $11.. Hannibalic war Rhegium remained loyal to Rome and
To the present writer, however, it appears that there has materhlly contributed fo HannibaI's ultimate defeat by
been another of those confusions whjEh havo made it 90 difficult
to retrace the true course of the Kcistory of kraal (see TABEAI.). cutting off his communications with Africa. After the
The Aram of which Re& was king was possibly not the Social war it became a Roman municipiuni like the
northern but a southern country of that name (see C& Bib.). other m e e k cities of southern 'Itafy. During the war
Critics have duly ndiced that Is. 7 1 is really no part of the between Octaeian ahd Sextus Pornpeias (38-36 R . c . ) ,
biography of Isaiah, hut &rowed Iran 2 H , l b ~ ,and have
conjectured that the original opening of chap. 7 had hecome Rhegium was often the Readquarters 6f Octavian's forces
illegible (see Znfr. Is. 31). It is possible, however, that it was (Dio Cass. 48 1 4 ) ; and, by way of reward, its population
omitted hecause it contained some definite h m i c a l statements was increased by the addition of a body of time-expired
respecting t k invaders which the redactor, from his imperfect marines (Strabo, 259),and it assumed the name Rhegium
hiseorical knowledge, cwld mt undarstancl. It is not even
certain that the king who is mentioned in the second place was /uCzm (Orell. Inscr. 3838). About Paul's time it was
really Pekah, king of Israel. The present writer sees some a populous and prosperous place, still preserving many
reason to think that both kings were N, Arabians, and that the traces of its Hellenic origin (Strabo, 253). It continued
second king was confmnded with Pehb, pertly from n partial
resemblance of the names and partly hecause the traditimal to exist as a considerable city throughout the period of
father of each of them was called ' Remaliah,' which i s a corrupt the empire (Plin. 3 6 ) . It W R S the terminus of the road
form of ' Jerahmeel' (Che.). It was, however, certainly to which ran from Capua to the straits (the Via PofiZia,
Tiglath-pileser (not to he confounded with PUL[q.v.l) that made in 134 B. C . i.
Rezin applied for help. In Is. 8 4 we should probahly tead,
I The riches of Cusham and the spoil of Shimron shall he carried The ship in which Paul sailed had some difficulty
away before the king of Assyria.' In 2 K. 186 there is no in reaching Khegium from Syracuse (Acts 2813, nepl-
sufficient cause for emending 'Aram' into 'Edom.' It was a eh66vrer,* 'by tacking' ; AV ' we fetched a compass,'
matter of great importance to the southern 'Arammites' to
obtain command of a harbour. Hiram, king of hfisrim (see RV, ' made a circuit '), as the wind did not lie favour-
Soi.osroru, F, 3 6 ) , was content to leave Ezioii-geher nominally in ably. At Rhegium she remained one day waiting for a
the hands of Solomon ; but Rezin was not inclined to put any wind for the narrow passage through which for want of
tru-t in the Judahites.
See D AMASCUS, § I O , ISRAEL, 32, and cp REZON. sea-room a large ship could not easily work by tacking.2
T. K . C .
The run with the S. wind northwards to Puteoli (about
180 m. distant) would take about twenty-six hours (cp
BEZIlp (I9?? ; P W W N [EA], -A&CC. EL]). the name D . 13, beurepaiot 4 f M u p e ~ ) .
of a post-exilic family of Nethinim, and therefore (see With the stages of Paul's journey as given here we may
NETHINIM), according to Cheyne's theory, N. Arabian compare that of Titus, afterwards Emperor, in 70 A.D. (Suet.
f c p such names as Shamlai [Ishmael], Giddel [the
southern Gilead], Reaiah [JefahmeelJ) : Ezra 2 4 8 - Weh. 1 % to he read in preference to rrprrrldwrs WH, 'casting
'iso(pasew~ [w, paacwrcl L])=I Esd.53r (AALCAN loose.
2 For the difficulties of the straits, see Thuc.424,. +&8sy
P3l. CAN [AI, PMWN [ L i DAISAN, .EV)- otua f i K h o S ;yaAarril i v o p s i u ~ ;Paus. v. 25 2, Zmozr yap 6q q ram
RBON (fir?, I prince?' cp Sab. IV7, IT7 and $
i o 4 r a . Mhaaoa 7k so@&
l
tlah\dotqs H r t p < p o r \ d q d
, 2ko be gives tkc explanation ef $hi$characteristic.
whete
~ ,

4097 4098
RHESA RIBLAH
Tit. 5, ' Quare festinans in Italiam, cum Regium, dein Puteolos that Antiochus VII. Sidetes (king of Syria, 138-118B.c.).
oneraria nave appulisset, Roman inde contendit '). son of Demetrius I., heard of the imprisonment of his
w.J . w. brother (Demetrius II.), and 'sent letters from the i s h
RHESA ( ~ H C A Ti. , WH), a name in the genealoh of the sea unto Simon the priest and governor of the
of Jesus ; Lk. 3 27. See GENEALOGIES ii., 3. Jews,' as told in I Macc. 151f: (cp App. Syr. 68).
RHINOCEROT (Is. 347, AVmg.). See U NICORN. The Rhodians gained a privileged position as allies of Rome
in the Macedonian and Mithridatic wars hut were deprived of
RHODA (POAH, T i . W H ) , the name1 of the maid their political freedom by Claudius (44 AID.) for the crucifixion
( ~ A I A I C K H )who answered the door when Peter knocked, of Roman citizens (Dio Cass. lx. 244). In 56 A.D. this was
restored to them (Tac. Ann. 1 2 58 : ' reddita Rhodiis lihertas,
Acts 1213t. In one of the lists of ' the seventy' it is adernpta szpe aut firmata, prout bellis externis meruerant aut
stated that Mark had a sister called Rhoda (see Lipsiuj, domi seditione deliquerant '). The island was finally reduced
Apokr. Ap. -Gesch., Erganzungsheft, zz). to a province (Le., made part of the province of Asia) by
Vespasian (Suet. Yes#. 8). Its great importance in the early
RHODES (poAoc), a large and important island, Empire was gained through its schools of rhetoric, as that of
lying in the south-eastern E g e a n (the part called the Athens through her schools of philosophy.
Literatuve.LC. Newton TraueLs and Discoveries in flrc
Carpathian Sea), about 12 m. distant from the coast of Levant, vol. I : C . Torr, )Rhodes in Ancient Times (Camb.
Asia Minor ; mentioned only incidently in the N T (Acts 1885) ; Holm, Gk. Hist ET 4483f: (the best short account in
211). After leaving Cos, the ship in which Paul English); Mahaffy,Gr&K
Reisen u. Studien auf den
Lb and ;r/iO&t, chag 15 i Ross,
fnseln, 3 70f: On hodian art,
voyaged to Palestine from Macedonia touched a t see Gardner, Handbook oyGreek ScuZpture, 2468f: Ancient
Rhodes, which was apparently her last port of call before authority, Strabo, p. 652s W.J. W.
Patara, where Paul transhipped. T h e same name was
applied both to the island and its capital ; but probably RHODOCUS ( ~ O A O K O C[AV]), a Jew who betrayed
the latter is meant in this place. It stood a t the the plans of Judas the Maccabee to Antiochus Eupator
northern extremity of the island, where a long point ( 2 Macc. 1321). On the discovery of his treachery h e
runs out towards Caria. T h e city possessed two chief was imprisoned.
harbours, both on the eastern side of the promontory. RHODUS (I Macc. 15 q ) ,RV RHODES.
The foundation of,the city of Rhodes (408 B.C.) was
due to the joint action of the ancient Rhodian towns of
RIBAI ('>'l), the father of I TTAI ( p . . ~ . ) ( z S. 2329,
Lindos, Ialysos, and Camiros (Diod. Sic. 1375). ' The ~ ~ I [B],B A EPIBA [L] om. A ; I Ch. 1131, p s B ! ~[B],
forces which, outwardly at least, had hitherto been ~ A B E I A I[K], p~Bai.[A], PIBAT [L]). Comparlng 6"
divided, were now concentrated, and the good effects of in z S. we may with Marquart (Fund. 2 0 ) restore
this concentration for the island, as well as for Greece ; see J ERIBAI.
q-i?
in general, were soon to appear ' (Holm, GK. Hist., ET, RIBBAND ( 5 l n B ) .used in Nu. 1538 AV of the 'cord'
44%). (so RV) of blue worn upon the F RINGES [ q . ~ . ] .
The great political importance of the new city gradually For other usages of the Heb. jrithiZ see BRACELETS, 2, CORD,
asserted itself during the fourth century, and by Alexander's RING.
time it had become the first naval power in the Egean, and a
decisive factor (Diod. Sic. 2081, mprp&qros 70;s GuvLmars rai RIBLAH (I$??; oftenest AfBAaea [BKAFQTL],
@ a m A e i h v4v, ~ K L W T O U
unrdovros cis r;lv aboi3 ALaw rrpodap- and always 'Dihlath' in Pesh. ; on Nu. 34 X I see
,¶dvcrBar). So great was the reputation o? the city that below). A city in the territory of Hamath ( z K. 2333,
Alexander chose it as the place of deposit of his will. The
commercial importance of the place is indicated by the fact of a p a a [B], GePXaa [A];1 256 r+/3haBav [B], E L S
the introduction of a new (Rhodian) standard of coinage ; 6@haBa [AL]; V . 21 p$?ha@a [B]; Jer. 395, p. [Theod. ;
Rhodian coins are remarkable for their beauty (see on this 6 om.] and w. 6 6. [Theod.; 6 om.]; 629 G$?aOa [K"];
Holm, op. cit. 349, and Head, Hist. Numm., s.v.). 5210 6ep .. Ba [I']). It is hardly possible in our brief
The commercial relations of Rhodes were principally space to give the reader a just idea of the new problems
with Egypt, but in fact the central position of the connected with the name of Riblah.
island in the mid-stream of maritime traffic between the Whether the foreign king who dethroned Jehoahaz was really
E. and the W. assured her prosperity, and this, Necho, king of Egypt, has become rather uncertain (see ZEDE-
combined with good government a t home and a wise KIAH). For OYyp, Mizraim (Le., Egypt), we should perhaps
foreign policy, lifted her to a position analogous to that in 2 K. 23 34, as in so many other passages, read D'??, Minim :
of Venice in later times. The Rhodian harbours cp MIZRAIM8 26. It was possibly, or even probably, a N.
Arabian king called Pir'u, not an Egyptian Pharaoh, wh?
seemed to have been designed by Nature to attract the brought the kingdom of Judah into vassalage. If so 'Riblab
ships of Ionia. Caria, Egypt, Cyprus, and Phaenicia may be a popular corruption of 'Jerahmeel.' It is not less
(Aristeid. Rhod. 341); and the consistent policy of possible or probable that in the other passages where n h
neutrality, broken only by vigorous and decisive action occurs 'Riblah' should he emended into 'Jerahmeel.' The
accounts of geographical boundaries of Canaan in the OT have
when the peace and freedom of the seas were endangered, been, it would seem, systematically corrected, in good faith,
attracted foreign merchants, among whom, we may be but in complete misapprehension of the documents.
sure, those of Jewish nationality were conspicuous If we assume, however, provisionally, the data of the
(I Macc. 15 23); young men were regularly sent to Rhodes traditional text, how shall we explain them? I n this
to learn business (Plaut. Merc., prol. 11). Rhodes did case, ' Riblah ' will be represented by the poor village
in the E. what Rome did in the W. in keeping the seas of Ribleh, on the E. bank of the NuAv eZ2A:i
clear of pirates (Strabo, 652, T & hgunjpia KaOeiXE ; cp (Orontes), 35 m. NE. of Baalbec. It was here that
Pol. 419). Her maritime law was largely adopted by Necho put Jehoahaz in chains ( z K. 2 3 3 3 ) and NEBU-
the Romans (cp Pnnd. xiv. 2 9 ) ; and the principle of CHADREZZAR (q.v.) some twenty years later made his
'general average,' for example, is Rhodian in origin, headquarters when he came to quell the Palestinian
with probably much else in modern naval law that revolt.2 Here Zedekiah saw his sons slain ( z K. 256=
cannot now be traced. Jer. 39 5 f. = 529 f:), and certain officers and people
Rhodes is connected with two passages in the life of from Jerusalem were put to death ( 2 K. 2 5 z o f : =Jer.
Herod the Great. When on his way to Italy he 1 & @ A d a is identified by a scholiast on z K. 25 20 in cod. 243
contributed liberally towards the restorations rendered with Daphne the suburb of Antioch in Syria; cp Jerome on
necessary to repair the ravages of Cassius in 42 B.C. NU. 34 11.
2 An inscri tion of Nebuchadrezzar found in the WSdy Brissa
(App. BC 4 7 2 ; Plut. Brut. 30). I t was at Rhodes (on the E. oftebanon) refers to the devastation wrought among
also that after the battle of Actium (31 B . c . ) he had the cedars of Lebanon by a foreign foe and the flight of the
the meeting with Augustus upon which so much inhabitants. Nebuchadrezzar's (second) :isit to Riblah in 586,
depended for him (Jos. Ant. xv. 66). It was in Rhodes if historical, was to repair the damage done and to encourage
the population of Lebanon which probably resisted the 'foreign
1 Another form of the n.ame in classical literature is Rhodos foe ' and suffered accordingly. The 'foreign foe must have
(,5.680s fern.). It was borne by a daughter of Poseidon, and by been Necho (Wi. A O F 5 0 4 S ) . This, however, must be ac-
one oithe Danaids (see Smith, Dict. Gr. and Rom. Biogr., s.u.). cepted with some critical reserve.
4099 4100
RIDDLE RIGHT, RIGHTEOUSNESS
5226f:). The occurrences of Riblah recognised by riddle by the Hebrews at feasts,’ and we could easily
EV need some revision ; the name should certainly believe that if our sources of information were not so
be inserted in Ezek. 614, where Riblah (misread in &row, we should find that the Israelites had some
M T as D IBLAH : AV ‘Diblath’), as a boundary, resemblance in this department to the Arabs, with whom
takes the place of the more usual ‘Hamath,’ and it there was almost a separate hranch of enigmatic litera-
should as certainly be omitted in Nu. 34 XI. Here, as ture, with many subdivisions. Still, we have only one
most scholars suppose, the ideal eastern frontier of example of the riddle in the OT-the famous one of
Canaan is described. T h e border, w-e are told, is to Samson (Judg. 1414--‘avery bad riddle,’ G. F. Moore) ;
go down ‘ from Shepham H RBLH on the E. of Ain.’ If of those referred to in I K. 1 0 r 3 the narrator has
we put aside the prejudice produced by the pointing favoured us with no specimen ; nor did Josephus ( A n t .
( n > m ) , it seems probable that ’ to Harbel ’ (ni~h?) is viii. 53) find in the Phamician history of Dius any
the meaning intended, and not ’ to Riblah.‘ T h e right details of the riddles said to have been sent by Solomon
vocalisation was still known to the @ translator ( d a b to Hiram of Tyre, and by Hiram to Solomon (Jos. Ant.
u@a@ appqXa ; see S HEPHAM ), and also to Jerome and viii. 53 [§ 1491). T h e information in post-biblical
Eusebiun, who speak (OS, 866 214172 23254) of Arbela writings like the Midrash MishlE or the 2nd Targum to
or apvha as a point on the eastern confines of Canaan. Esther is certainly more curious than valuable.
The Speaker’s Cumm. finds Harbel (more strictly $>in) I n the N T ‘ riddle’ occurs once, I Cor. 1 3 12, where,
in the Har-bad-hermon of Judg. 33, and supposes the to some scholars, the combination of ai’ ~ C T ~ T T ~ Oand U
border to pass by the southern end of Mt. Hermon 6v,aiviypan appears difficult.
near the two best-known sources of the Jordan. If Bv ab. (to which Origen, c. Ceb. 7 50 and elsewhere, and the
MSS LP prefix Kai [in Orig. rai civiyparorl) may no doubt be
the current theory of the reference may provisionally be illustrated by Nu. 128 (B),kv B&L Kai 0; 8‘’ a h TOW, which
accepted, let us rather say that Harbel was synonymous may perhaps have been explained ‘in a well-dei?ned form and
with Har-bad-gad, since ’ Raal-gad at the foot of Mt. not in indistinct blurred outlines ’ (for this use of aivrypa see
Origen on Jn. 19).
Hermon’ occurs in the parallel passage Josh. 135 instead W e do not want the additional phcase Ev aiviypan,
of the Har-baal-hermon of Judg. 33. This view is at which appears somewhat to mar the antithesis ; what
any rate more plausible than van Kasteren’s identifica- we look for is rather ‘for now we see writh the help
tion of Hariblah with Halibnah, between the Yuvmzik of a mirror, but then face to face.’ Preuschen would
and the W@y Sanzuk (Rev. bibl., 1895, p. 33). One therefore omit Pv aiviypan as due to a later hand
of the spurs of the Jebel esh-ShFkh (Mt. Hermon) is in ( Z N T W , 1900,p. 180J, cp ~ I I R R O R ) .
fact called Jebel Arbel.’ But it is much to be feared
that the identification is illusory. T. K. C. RIE occurs twice in AV (Ex.932 Is.2825) as the
RIDDLE occurs nine times in EV (Judg. 1412-19,
rendering of nn;?,
for which RV has rightly ‘ spelt.’
See FITCHES. N. M .
ITPOBAHMA; Ezek. 172, A l H r H w A ) and twice in
EVmg. (frov. 1 6 , A l N l r M A ; Hab. 2 6 , T T P O B A H M ~ ) as RIGHT, RIGHTEOUSNESS, The Hebrew words
the rendering of Heb. ?lT’n, &iaZh. for righteousness are &en, ;Zd@dh (PTY, ?lRyy), con-
The word ny-n, usually explained as ‘something twisted or terms. nected with which we have the adjec-
1.
- ,(3’7s) ‘ righteous,’
knotty,’ but more probably (see Lag. Griech. Ue6erseiz. der tive suddik
- . - and the
P r m ~73) ‘something shut up’ (cp h a m . ynN, and Bibl.-Aram.
in,n~), occurs seventeen times. in MT and and once in Heb. verb piduk (ply) to be in the right-in Hiphil and
Ecclus. 4i I 7 ; in I K. 10 I 2 Ch. 9 1 it is rendered ‘hard question ’ Pi‘el, to declare a person in the right. Probably the
(abrypa) : in Ps. ‘I? 5 [4] 78 3 [21 ‘ dark saying ’ (mpd,¶hvpa); in most original form of the root appears in the noun
Prov. 1 6 ‘ dark saying ’ ( a h y p a ) ’ In Hab. 2 6 ‘ proverb (=pi- :/de&, from which the verb, appearing first in the H i p k
,¶+a); in Nu. 128 ‘dark speech”(aXvrypa); in Dan. 823 ‘dark
sentence ’ (aivrypa, np6BAppa [Th. 1) and in Ecclus. 47 17 form, is a denominative. It is not easy to fix precisely
‘ parable ’ (rrapapohvj) ; a h y p a also occurs in Wisd. 8 8 (‘ dark the primary meaning of the root. Gesenius takes it to
saying ’), Ecclus. 39 3 (AV ‘ dark parables,’ RV ‘dark sayings of be ‘straight’ ; Ryssel, with less reason, ’hard.’ In
parables’),4 i 15 (EV ‘dark parables,’ R V w . ‘parables ofriddles,
Heb. differs). any case the earliest sense which can be traced in actual
Thanks to its frequent parallelism with the word use appears to be conformity to a recognised norm or
m a f d (see P ROVERB ), .hidihhas acquired a considerable standard.
Thus BeidZwi on Sur. 2 2 1 (quoted by Kautzxh) rightly
range of meaning. Thus it denotes ( I ) a riddle as we explains the corresponding form in Arabic, n z . ;adk as mvfri6ik
understand the word-e.g. that propounded by Samson -i.e., ‘congruent, so that things as unlike as a javelin and a
to the Philistines, Judg. 1412J?, or those with which date may each be described as S d i k if they are as they should
the Qoeen of Sheba is said to have proved Solomon, be. Nothing fresh can be learned f&n the Syriac usage, which
simply repeats with less fulness that of the Hebrew and New
I K. 101 2 Ch. 9 1 ; ( 2 ) a sententious maxim (Prov. Hebrew. d h.a used great freedom in translating :4dek
3015J, etc.) still affecting to preserve the form of a and its derivatives. 6 i ~ a r o r Grrarow’rq GiraroGv are their
riddle but wanting its essentials-viz., the adequate commonest renderings ; but &e also find, 6.g.. sidrikrih repre-
sented by Scraiopa ;hqpoorizq (9 times), iheo; (3 t‘imes), and
characterisation of the object, and the pause before even by r&j5podq(is.61 IO), ;add$, bylhv&jr, 4ue,¶vjc, 1 ~ ~ ~ 6 s .
reply. Even the riddle form may be dispensed with, On the other hand GiKaroc, Grrarodrq, 6rraro6v stand in @
&id&, as in Prov. 1 6 , denoting simply any sententious for many Hebrew words unconnected etymologically with the
maxim, or as in Ps. 495 (where, however, there are root p - e g . . , for nn5, iDn, iinp,
etc.
~e;, ~ ‘ i ) : , I,?;, D$$, ‘n9,
textual difficulties) the statement of a moral problem.
( 3 ) A parable-as in Ezek.173-Io, though the passage It will be well before examining the history of the
is not pure parable, but partakes of the characteristics words in the OT, to mention two facts which should
of riddle and allegory as well. On account of the be borne in mind throughout, in tracing the idea of
allusive and figurative character of many of the satirical righteousness as the Hebrews understood it. In the
lays of popular history (e.g., Nu. 2 1 2 7 8 I S. 187, cp first place, :ddek and its derivatives seldom occur in the
P OETICAL L ITERATURE , 5 4 iii.), the term hid& is older documents. They are pretty common in the
not inappropriately used to designate them in Hab. 26, literary prophets ; they are exceedingly frequent in the
but its use in Ps. 782 is probably only due to the poet’s wisdom literature and in the Psalms. Next, the meaning
needing a parallel to $h.(4) Lastly, &i&h is used of these words becomes gradually wider, and assumes a
quite generally to denote any unusual or difficult and more strictly ethical and religious signification. W e
perhaps esoteric mode of expression, Nu. 128 Dan. 823. may compare the use of GiKaroulivq which is unknown to
Bochart has discoursed learnedly of the use of the Homer and Hesiod, and also the expansion of meaning

1 So Furrer in Riehm’s H W B ; cp Ritter, ErdRunrIe 15 I 1 Hieror. 383 ed. Rosenmidler. Cp Whsche, ‘ D i e


pp. 159,183. In ZDPY 5 29 a different, and less plausible,’ideni Rathselweisheit el den Hebrsern, JPT 1883, and cp for
tification was proposed (with ‘Arhin, 5 kil. N E . of Damascus). examples Krafft, Jcdische S q c n und Dicdrmgpn.
4101 4102
RIGHT, RIGHTEOUSNESS RIGHT, RIGHTEOUSNESS
in 8 ~ 76,k m m from ‘ custom,’ ‘ o’bservant of recognised in Ex. 237 (a) after a warning against oppression of
usage,” till they stood for absolute justice and the man the poor by corrupt administration of justice, thegeneral
of ideal virtue. Similar analogies obviously appear in principle is enunciated, ‘for thou shalt not decide in
the Latin justz1s. and in our own terms ‘right,’ favour of a malefactor.’ A slightly different shade of
‘ righteous,’ etc. meaning is given to the verb in Absalom’s exclamation
It is doubtful whether real instances of the primitive ( z S. 15.+), ’ 0 that they would make me a judge in the
use-viz., agreement with a physical norm--still survive land : then if any man came t o me with a plea and a
Lev. 1936 Ezek. 4510, case, I would help him to his right ’ (ivpqn).’
a. Development in Hebrew.
‘ exact balances,’ ‘ exact weights,’ etc.,
Of meaning. By an easy transition the idea of legal right is extended to
are commonly quoted as cases in point. that of being in the right on some particular occasion without
T h e passages, however, are laie,-and as the contrasted any implication as to general moral character. No more is
implied in Judah’s admission (Gen. 3626), ‘She’ (Tamar) ‘is
notion of iniquity occurs in the immediate context, it
is by no means clear that we should not translate
more in tbe right than I (’?e? ”p9,’ or perhap ‘She hasacfed
‘ righteous balances,’ etc. Similarly ’ paths of st‘&@ ’ in within h a rights and can maintain her case against me.’ (For
Ps. 233 may mean ‘ paths of righteousness,’ not simply this use of In, cp Job322.) Further, ?rid& is used of one who
‘ straight paths.’ Still less can Joel 223 be alleged a9 is justified in his statement. This meaning is evident in Joh
33 12 where, after quoting Job’s words Elihu says ‘ L? ! in this
an example of smdikih in its original-Le., physical- [statement] thou art not justified : I Gill aiiswer ;bee. In the
signification, for the translation given by Kautzsch same way the adjective is employed Is. 41 26 ‘Who announced
‘early rain in full measure’ is more than doubtful. this from the beginning that we dight know it .
‘‘Right”’-i.#.,
.. and sap
‘he is right’? not, ‘It is INe,’ for the Hebrew
W e m a y perhaps acquiesce in the translation ‘early adjective is never used of things. Examples of this meaning in
rain for your justification’-ie., in proof that Yahwb noun, adjective, and verb are numerous. See for use of the
has once more graciously accepted his people (so WeIlh., noun ($/dc&) Is59 j Ps..525[31 Prov. 8 8 1613, of the verb in
Hiph, Job 27 and in Hithpa. (perhaps) Gen. 44 16. In Arab.
Nowack, and Smend, A T Kel. -gesch. 4198), the use of the root fox ‘truth-s-king; ‘sincere,’ is much more
Passing from the idea of conformity t o a physical advanced a d definite.
standard, we have t o note the use of the plu. g d i k i f h W e may now turn to the idea of righteousness
(ni>7s) in the earliest fragment of Hebrew literature- properly so called, of righteoulsness in its ethical
viz., the so-called * Song of Deborah.’ There the poet 4, signification ; and here the investigation
describes the vaIiant deeds of the Hebrews as due to sense tn, has its starting-point in the early ligerary
the help which Yahwi: gave, and might as the tribat prophe. prophets In the reign of Jeroboam 11. a
God be fairly expected to give, his people. This seem9 capitalist chsa had arisen : the d d tribal
to be his conception of gdB&?th. I t involves littb or justice, depending on the bond of clan and still well-
no ethical element. Yahwb acted in accordance with maintained among the Arabs of the desert, was well-
the natural bond between his worshippers and himself, nigh gone in Israel (see GOYERNBENT, % I 2 3 :L A W AND
and the plural form indicates the various occasions on JUSTSEE, § 2). Hence the passionate cry of ~ m o s for
which he did so. national righteousness. for justice in the gates-Le,, for
Tu the same class we may perhaps refer Dt. 33 n, whete Go& right institutions rigtifly administered. H e reiterates
is raid to have moupt tbe, se&kdh . ” . of Yahwk because he was hi protest that external- ritual i s of n o avail without
the instrument o f t e divlae pu e by re & h g the ias d justice. ‘ T a k e away from me’ ( Y a k & speaks) ‘the
Israel. In the sm poem (the ‘%&kg o?Moses,’ Dt. 33 19)
Zchlurr ah thk tribes to,some sacred muntain thlf rhey m y tumult of thy songs, the music of tby lures I will not
offer ‘sacrificeb of ’&A, and this may mean no more than trear. But let justice roll in Eke river and righteous-
sacrifices offered du$->.r. according to the reco ised form ness Eke a perennial stream’ (&),. True,Amos also
and as a n a r d feturri f& bemfvrs conferred. I%e, if chi;
interpretation be somd, the ethical elrmcac is not wholly uses t h e a d w i v e &a%@ ia t k old legal sense ( 2 6 5 1 2 ) .
absent ; but it is still faint and rudimentary.2 and k has the adminisfratton of justice constantly in
We have to ckal next with the many cases in which vies. In him view, however, Iegal justice springs from
the legal signification predominates. I n the ‘Book the essential n a m e of cod,who demands righteousness,

3. Qr of the Covenant ’ (Ex. 237) we read, fx)t ri-1 worship from his people. T h e demartd is
s h d t not put t o death him w h a made to the nation as a whole. Unless it is safisfied,
f‘orens*c is“Fhouinnocent and ?add@,’ where cleanly Israel must perish utteriy and there is no room left for
the @ i s k is not lhinkinc d virtuous difference irr the fate of the righteous and the un-
characrer, Bnr of imocence from & e charge brought righteous indhridaal. Hosea also insists on national
before the court. This restricted use always continued righteousnes ; but Ais conception of it is at once wider
long after t h e deeper and more lsniversal meaning had and deeper than that of his predecessor. It is wider,
become familiar. for righteousness, as Hosea understood it, 8s m r e than
Isaiah, for example (4 23) speaks of F> n p ? F b . , the
bare justice. If includes &sssd-i.e., merciful con-
of a man who has a good case-ad ih Prov. 18 17 we are told sideration for otfrers.” It is deeper, for Hosea saw that
that the first comer is right (?+e., seems to be right in his outward amendmenc could nor be permanent without a
contention rill his o ponent appears and puts him to the proof. radkal change ofmind. ‘ Sow to yourselves in righteons-
See also Dt. 25 I 8rov. 17 15 18 5 24 24. Here it is necessary ness : reap accord’mg to lovingkindness : break up f o r
to note the significant f2ct that no feminine form of p’?? is &und yovrsdvcs f a l l m ground; for it is time to seek Yahwb,
anywhere in the OT : indeed the use of the verb ?tp?in Gen. that the fruit of righteousness may come to you ’ (10 1 2 ,
38 a6 (the only Occurpence of K d in thu Hexateuch) may fairly cp e). It is not enough fa sow good seed: the ground
must iirsr be cleated and broken u p : in short, the
be accepted as proof that the‘ adjective had no feminine torm.
This may be naturally accounted for on the ground that p’7.F Israelites must become new men, and Yahwb‘s will
meant originally ‘rigbt in law,’ a d that a woman was not a must rule their lives. Yahwi? wili accept no snperdcid
‘person’ with legal rights. conversion (61-4): the only remedy is a new- birth by
In early literafure the use of the verb is almost wholly which Israel becomes a new creature (13r3).
confined to the Hiphil, and the meaning of rhe verb Isaiah develops the principles of Amos and Hosea.
correspbnds to that of the adjective. In other words, His moral code is much the same. ‘ Seek out justice :
the Hiphil verb means to decide in favour of a litigant, 5. Isaiah. set light the violent man : do justice to the
by declaring him to be in the right. So, for example, orphan : plead for the widow’ ( l 1 6 j . 5 7
1 I t is always assumed that the standard is external and
202). He, no less than Hosea, makes religion a
recognised as correct Thus, e.g. Homer s aks of Autolycus 1 So 8 ~ r a ~ oinhclassical Greek means to give a man his due
as ‘good ’ (taBA6v, Od. 19 q), adhing that excelled all men but always in a bad sense, viz., to condefnn. It is onlyin &and
‘jn knavery and the oath. He would not have called him N T that it means ‘to declare righteous.
Gurarov. So now we migha perhaps speak of ‘a good thi4’ 2 Cp ~b &~mx&. which corrects the dcdects of bw, and
but: not ofa just one. is, thercforg B k naL maw i%kqmu ~uni00,Ariat. Etk.
2 The use of &K=, r Eomer is similar.
i 0 ~ 6 jhi N*om. 6 %
4’03 4-
RIGHT, RIGHTEOUSNESS RIGHT, RIGHTEOUSNESS
matter of the heart (2913). Righteousness is the 1 in security.' The history of the world is the judgment
inesorable rule by which Yahwe governs the world , of the %-odd. Here, however, the idea of righteousness
(2s 171, and wickedness by its own nature blasts the is modified by fresh associations, and with the consequent
evildoer (9 r;r[18]). Because of Israel's sin the nation as change in the application of the word we shall have to
a whole is doomed hopelessly ( 6 13a). Still, those who deal presently.
believe in Yahwe as the eternal principle of righteous- W e have already given from the earlier documents
ness can stand fast in the crash of ruiii all around of the Hexateuch instances which illustrate the more
them (79). Meanwhile the prophet was educating a restrictedand primitive use of the root ,p.
band of disciples (816) who were to be the germ of a 7. W e also meet there, as might have been
6 remnant that was to be coiiverted.' and in one of his o ~ ~ ~ ~ d $expected,& with the prophetic use in which
latest prophecies (121-26) he passes from an ideal picture it is co-extensive with moral excellence.
of Jerusalem in Davidic days (the idealisation of the Yahwk, e.g., declares that he has seen how righteous
past separates him in a very marked manner from Noah is ( a n . 7 I. J ) : he knows that Abraham will teach
Hosea) and expresses the great hope of better times to his descendants ' to do judgment and righteousness'
come. Judgment will have done its cleansing work : (Gen. 1819, a late stratum of J E ) . Only one passage
once more judges will give impartial decisions and in the Hexateuch calls for special notice here, both from
Jerusalem shall be known as ' the fortress of righteous- its intrinsic interest and from the famous argument drawn
ness, the faithful city.' from it by Paul. The words in Gen. 156 ( J ? ) are
A century later Jeremiah maintained the same con- 'Abraham trusted in Yahw& and he reckoned it to
ception of righteousness. In 223 he gives what almost him as righteousness.' Paul identifies the faith of
6. Jeremiah. amounts to a definition of righteousness : Abraham with justifying faith as he himself under-
it consists negatively in abstinence from stood it. It would be an anachronism to suppose that
murder and oppression of the widows and orphans, the writer of the words in Genesis had risen to an idea
positively in securing justice for those who were power- of this kind, nor is any such exegesis supported by the
less to help themselves. T h e same thought appears in context. Abraham believed, not in Gods pardoning
other passages-cg., in chap. 7, though the word 'right- grace, but inYahwB's fidelity to his promise. In fact
eousness ' is not actually used. W e must not, however, Abraham's faith or trust is precisely what faith a s Paul
forget that Jeremiah held fast to his belief in righteous- conceives it is not, an 'opus per se dignuni.' See
ness at the cost of a personal struggle more searching FAITH, § I.
and severe than that which any of his precursors had to From the ethical we may now pass to the theocratic
face. It was his hard fate t o learn that even a law like sense of !ldi&ih and the cognate words. We have
that of Deuteronomy, embodying as it did the best 8. Theomtic $ready had a-gIimpse of this meaning
results of prophetic teaching, could not of itself change in the Messianic passage quoted from
the hearts of the very men who in form, and as they BBspa Jeremiah. It became prevalent from
believed, sincerely, complied with its r q u i r e n m t s . the time of HaGkkuk. It must be remembered that
Moreover, Jeremiah had to contend with the organised H a b k h u k , like Jeremiah, lived after Josiah's reform, but
priesthood of Jerusalem, after the priests of the high does not, Eke Jeremiah, attribute the partial failure of
places had been removed and when those of the central that reform t o the depravity of the J u d z a n people. On
shrine claimed, on grounds which Jeremiah could not the contrary, he believed that the obstacle to strict legal
altogether gainsay, a divine sanction for their authority. observance lay in the oppression of Judnh by the
Moreover his sensitive nature was exposed to continual Babyinnians ( 1 4 ) ; €or it was very hard to believe in
suffering from the enmity of his contemporaries and Yahwe or his law while the Babylonian oppressor had
from the national ruin which he saw first in spirituaI it all his own way. T h e people of Judah were at least
vision and then with the bodily eye. Because of all better than their oppressors ; hence to Habakkuk ' fhe
this, Jeremiah's faith in the divine righteousness had to righteous ' is the constant description of the Judaeans,
draw its strength from the very donbt which threatened whilst e the wicked ' stands for the heathen conqueror.
to destroy it. ' Thou art in the right (~addI+) 0 YahwP, This termindogy was adopted by suh~equentwriters,
when I contend with thee : yet would I reaSOn the cause as may be seen from Is.2610 Ps.9617 1 0 2 8 In the
with thee : why does the way of the wicked prosper?' end, as Habakkuk holds, Yahwe will vindicate the cause
(12 I ). He knows well th?t the best law may be perverted of his people, and ' the righteous man '-Le., the man
by the ' lying pen of the scribes ' ( 8 8 ) and that YAWP of Judah, is t o live by fidelity to his God and confidence
is ' a righteous jndge (iciphq :&de&)proving reins and in the ultimate victory of the good cause. Here we
heart ' (1120). More explicitly fhan any earlier prophet have the outline of the picture which the Second Isaiah
he fuses moraIity and religion into one by reducing all ( i . e . , Is. 40-55) fills in with completer detail and added
duty to the one supreme duty of knowing I'ahw&'s will shades of meaning.' Whereas the earlier prophets
as revealed in his eovernment of the world. threatened, the unknown prophet of the Exile makes it
' l ' h u s saith Ynhwi., [.et not 3 wise man glury in his wisdom, his chief endeavour to comfort Israel. No doubt the
neither let a hero glory in his villour, let not a rich man glory in nation has sinned ; but it has also been punished enough,
his wealth. But in this let him that glories glory, that he has and more than enough, and now the day of its deliver-
understanding and knows me [knows] that 1 am Yahwe who
do lovingkindness, judgment, knd righteousness on the darth : ance is at hand. ' For the sake of his own faithfulness
for in these things do 1 take Fleasure ; it is the oracle of Yahwt (@d)Yahwe has been pleased to give great and glori-
(9 z z f : [z3f.']).' Whereas Isaiah had seen that the people's heart ous revelation ' of his character ( 4 2 2 1 ~He ~ is a ' triith-
was not in their worship, Jeremiah recognised the radical evil that
the heart of man is weak and cannot he trusted (17g), and he speaking ' God (:add$, 4521). H e has stirred up Cyms
saw the hope
_.I ~ .~
&~ AL-
~~~ . r *,-I-. ~ - L .
~~~ 9 1 -~
of spiritual religion, not in amendment on man,'s
1.-
1- ~ ~
' in righteousness ' (45 . 13).
. .
L e . , as Yahw&
. .ought
. . to
.
do,
..

r inauy, me expecrarion 01a ~ v ~ e s s m King,


~ c or line 01 glorious restoration Yahwe 'justities' Israel-%e., decides
Messianic kings, appears probably for the first time in in its favour (.W8). Hence in a multitude of cases :&de&
Jeremiah. YahwP will raise from the family of David and :?dikih mean triumph (so the verb 4525 : cp Z Y K ~ V
a a righteous branch.' H e is to execate true j u i c e and in Rom. 12.r) 'victory' ( 4 1 2 4612), 'redress' (518),
is to be called 'Yahwk is our righteousness' ( Z S s f . ) .
The context interprets this name of the Messiah. By 1 We may perhaps compare mho; K+OOL, opiimates, pmd.
restoring Israel to its own land Yahwe the judge of all Lonimes, g w f e Miinner, used of the aristocracy without any
is to vindicate the just cause of his people against the ethical meaning. Of course the ethical words never lost their
heathen. ' In his ( L e . , the Messiah's) days Judah wilI ethical sense so utterly.
2 Them is, however, some douht both as to the reference in
be saved ' (from heathen bondage) ' and Israel will dwell 1 this passage, and as to its authenticity. See Marti, udioc.
4'05 4106
RIGHT, RIGHTEOUSNESS RIGHT, RIGHTEOUSNESS
'salvation' (4613). I t is significant that when +?di@h be, is altogether strange to Amos and his successors.
retains its older and ethical force, it is used of a right- ' Cease to do evil, learn to do well,' is the remedy which
eousness which comes as a divine grace being ' rained Isaiah proposes ; nor does he doubt its efficacy : ' If ye
down from above' (45 8). In the Second Isaiah, however, be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the
this purely ethical sense is rare, occurring only two or land ' (Is. 116-19). Ezekiel, in a passage quoted above,
three times out of some twenty-five in which the Hebrew proposes the same rule to the individual, and combats
root is used. the delusion that the merits of persons exceptionally
T h e Second Isaiah, as we have seen, assumed that righteous could atone for the sins of their neighbours
the sufferings inflicted by Babylon had sufficed to purify (see also Jer. 151 31 29, and for an opposite view Gen.
1srael;and hailedwith joy the &ora- 1817f . ) . On the whole this principle ruled in later
9. Israel. To keep the law is righteousness (Dt. 625), and
tion of a righteous people. However,
in the preceding generation Ezekiel had the man or church that does so receives +?drikrih-i. e . , a
given expression to a very different view. I n the latter lavourable sentence 'from the God who comes to his
period of his work he was a pastor of souls, a preacher help ' (Ps. 245). I t is true that neither the individual
addressing individuals rather than a prophet with a Jew nor the Jewish church could always appeal with con-
message to the nation. Naturally, then, he insists on fidence to that perfect observance of the law which
individual righteousness. Each man is to be tried on justified in the sight of God. On the contrary, the
his own merits ; however righteous he may be, he can Psalms abound in acknowledgments of guilt (e.g., Pss.
secure the due reward for himself and only for himself. 384-6 4013 696 [SI). and the chief motive of religion was
Nay, even with the individual Yahwk deals according to secure divine pardon : ' There is forgiveness with thee
to his present actions, admitting no appeal to the that thou mayest be feared ' (Ps. 130.4). W e must not,
righteousness of the past, and on theother hand for- however, identify such misgivings with the reproach of
giving iniquity in case of repentance and amendment conscience, with the sense of sin as Christians under-
(Ezek. 181 l414.f. 331zJ). His ideal of righteousness stand it. The Jews believed that God was offended
in the individual conforms on the whole to the prophetic with them because he withheld the rewards of righteous-
standard of individual righteousness, though it includes ness and dealt with them as he deals with the wicked,
a larger amount of ritual ohservance (see esp. 186-8). they believed restoration to prosperity was the sure sign
Now, after the restoration, the view of the Second Isaiah of pardon and of grace, a state of mind which finds its
proved untenable. T h e restoration itself lacked the classical expression in Ps. 32. But was there no way of
external glory of which he had fondly dreamt, and the restoration except perfect righteousness, or, failing that,
exile had failed to produce that righteousness of the supplication to the divine mercy (as in Dan. 920)?
whole nation which was still the cherished aim of On this point the later teaching of the OT is not
religious reformers in the Jewish Church, How was it consistent.
to be acconrplished? Finally and completely by the The Priestly Code limits the efficacy of the sin-offering
judgment of :he last days, which is to fall on unfaithful which was introduced after the exile to venial or in-
Jews as well as the heathen. This is the favourite theme voluntary transgression (Nu. 15~7-31),
of Apocalyptic writers (see esp. Is. 102%which is a late
ll. atone- and the mention of sacrifice in the
merit and Book of Proverbs (158 166 21327) is
insertion : Mal. 33 Zech. 99 126 13p-Joel and Daniel
p a ~ s i m ) . Meanwhile the wisdom literature taught with propitiation* at least in harmony with this principle.
Ezekiel that God here and now, though not immediately, Still, even the Priestly Code had to mitigate the strict-
recompenses the righteous and the wicked according to ness of its theory. On the day of Atonement the high
their deserts, a dogma constantly reiterated in Proverbs priest laid the sins of Israel on the head of the goat
and Psalms. Here and there a distinction is made which was sent into the desert (Lev. 1620-22) ; the
between the ' weightier matters of the law ' and such as ishishdm atoned for perjury and embezzlement (Lev. 5 2 1 J
are merely ritual, since Yahwk loves ' righteousness and [SzJ] Nu. 5 5 J ) when preceded by restitution to the
judgment ' more than a sacrifice ' (Prov. 21 3, cp. e.g., person wronged, and incense could appease Yahwk when
Ps. 50). But more and more the 'righteous man' is provoked by the rebellion of his people (Nu. 1711f:
one who studies and practises the whole law (Ps. 15). [1646J]). At a still later period it was thought that the
T h e righteous are really one with the biisidim: these nierits of the Patriarchs atoned for the sins of Israel (see
are to be found as a rule among the poor and afflicted Weber, Altsyn. T h o l . 2 8 0 J ; and the essay on the
Israelites (Zech. 99 Ps. 56-59), and possibly the author ' Merits of the Fathers ' in Sanday and Headlam's Com-
of Ps. 94, when he speaks (u. I S ) of legal administration mentary on Romans), and we may perhaps find the germ
returning to ' righteousness,' may be looking forward to of this dogma in the atoning efficacy which the O T
the triumph of the Pharisaic over the Sadducean party. attributes to the prayers of holy men (Ex. 327J 31f:
Naturally those who made so much of the law laid great Nu.1411f. l 6 2 ~ 1 7 1 0 J o s . 7 6 JJer.716 l l 1 4 1 5 1 J o b 5 1
stress on deeds of mercy. But TZdrikrih nowhere admits, 3323) and of angels (Zech. 1 1 2 Job 5 I 3323). Very natur-
as in Mishnic Hebrew, of the rendering ' alms,' though ally the doctrine that the merits of the Fathers availed for
such passages as Ps. 1129 Dan. 424 [ZT] are not far re- the justification of Israel culminated in the belief that the
moved from this later use.l guilt of Israel was purged by the vicarious sufferings of
We have already, in discussing the various senses of righteous men. This no doubt was the teaching of the
&Zkih, etc., answered by implication the question, Rabbis. According to them, Isaac made propitiation
How is a man justified or accepted as for Israel by the willing oblation of his own life. God
lo'' "igh? righteous before God? Something, how- smote Ezekiel that Israel might go free, and martyrdom
eousness fve', has to be added here on the
ofsinners. made propitiation for sin as efficaciously as the day of
justification of sinners, the change from Atonement.2 The OT, however, lends no real support
divine condemnation to divine favour. .4s we have seen, to such a theory of justification by vicarious sacrifice.
the ancient Hebrew believed that Gods wrath could be The famous passage (Is. 5213-5312) which describes the
appeased by sacrifice ( I S. 26 19 3 14). whereas the earliest sufferings of YahwB's servant is treated elsewhere
of the literary prophets insisted that national amendment (S ERVANT OF THE LORD). I n spite of the corruption
was the only way of escape from national chastisement. of the text, the general sense seems to be clear.3
T h e idea that sin was a debt incurred and that payment 1 Almsdeeds also were regarded as a powerful means of atone-
was still due, however sincere the conversion might ment for past sins.
2 Re& in Holtzmann NTZ. TheoL 165j:
* 1 In M t . 6 1 Gwaromhqv is certainly the true reading, and 3 Verses ~ o j are,
: as 'they stand, quite out of place, since the
that of TR lA&oPv'vl)v is a gloss. Whether the gloss is correct context requires a reference to the resurrection, not the death
is another question. Weiss, ad Zoc,, answers this question in the of the servant. See Che. Intr. t o Is. 305, n. I , and Duhm and
affirmative; Holtzmann, NTC. Theol. 2 135, in the negative. Marti, ad loc. [also SEKVANT OF THE LORD,$5 4 (4) 5 (4)l.

4107 4108
RIGHT, RIGHTEOUSNESS RIMMON
Israel, the servant of Yahwe, does indeed suffer for the for all faithful service, long or short ; it consists in ad-
’ peace ’ and ’ healing ‘ of the nations. This, however, mission to the kingdom in which the ideal of righteous-
takes place because of the effect produced on the minds ness is realised (Mt. 201-16). As God bestows the
of the heathen, not because of the effect produced on powers to be used in his service, and has an absolute
the mind of God. At first the heathen regard Israel as right to that service, no room is left for merit which
afflicted by an angry God : they shrink from him as men does but claim its due : ‘ When ye shall have done all
shrink from a leper. Rut God reverses the tragic doom these things which are commanded you, say, W e are
of his people and raises up the nation to new life. unprofitable servants ’ (Lk. 17 IO).
Then the heathen understand the divine purpose. They Jesus opened the Kingdom of Heaven to those who
recall the meekness with which Israel endured its punish- hungered and thirsted for righteousness such as this
ment. They acknowledge their own sinfulness and come (Mt. 56). Whereas, however, prophets and apocalyptic
to the knowledge of the true God who has scattered writers had looked forward to a final separation of the
Israel abroad for a season that he may make it the light righteous and the wicked, Jesus began his work by
of nations and show his irresistible power in its glorious the great announcement that he came to call not the
restoration. righteous, but sinners, to repentance (Mt. 913=Mk. 2 1 7
The words Gkatos, Gtmtoudvq, which scarcely occur = Lk. 5 37). He declared and pronounced the forgive-
in the Fourth Gospel, are exceedingly common in Mt. ness of sins ; he spoke of the joy in heaven over one
and Lk., and serve to express the most sinner who repents ; he taught men to believe in God by
la.
conception. striking and characteristic features of first teaching them to believe in himself. He invited
Jesus’ teaching. Jesus required from men to believe in the good news (Mk. 115)-i.e., to
his disciples a righteousness better than that of the have faith or trust in God as their Father, and to make
Scribes and Pharisees, and told them that otherwise this trust the guiding principle of their lives.
they could not enter the Kingdom of Heaven (Mt. 520). It would be impossible within the limits of this article
Generally, it may be said that Jesus restored the pro- to discuss the righteoiisness of faith of which Paul
phetic ideal of righteousness, at the same time deepen- 13. Use of speaks or the connection of Christ‘s
ing and extending it. The popular doctrine understood, death with justification. It may be well,
by righteousness, not so much an honest and upright life SiKa10s.
however, to indicate in conclusion the
as scrupulous attention to moral and ceremonial rules, various uses of GiKaros and the cognate words in the N T
conduct legally correct. These rules were contained in apart from righteousness in the Pauline sense and that
the written and oral l a w ; Jesus declared that the higher righteousness demanded by Jesus from his dis-
traditions of the elders nullified the central purpose of ciples of which we have said something already. The
the law (Mk. 7 1-13), or at best were matters of indiffer- adjective 6fmtos, righteous,’ is applied to God especially
ence (id. ). Moreover, he not only distinguished between as judge of all (Rev.165), or to Christ ( z T i m . 4 8 Jn.
the more important and less important precepts of the 1 7 2 5 ) ; to men as observant of the Jewish law (Mt. 119).1
Mosaic law (Mt. 2 3 2 3 ) ; he also criticised the law itself It also is equivalent to a virtuous ’ in the widest sense
and set its most solemn commands aside. (Mt. 5 4 5 , 9 1 3 = Mk. 620 = Lk. 532, etc.). Once Paul
No less than this is implied in words such as these-’Moses distinguishes the righteous man who fulfils all his
because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to divorce obligations from the hyaObs whose character is more
your wives’ (Mt. 198=Mk. 105); ‘The Sabbath was made for
man, not man for the Sabbath ’(1Mk. 2 27) ; ‘ Nothing that goeth genial and attractive (Rom. 57). ‘ Righteous’ is also a
into a man from without can defile a man ‘(Mk. 7 15 =Mt. 15 17J; title given to men eminently righteous (Mt. 13 17 Mk. 2 17),
contrast Lev. 11 Deut. 14). Again, the righteousness which and by pre-eminence to Jesus (Acts3r4 7 5 2 2214). It
Jesus. taught far transcended on its positive side that of the is predicated, as the corresponding Hebrew adjective
Mosaic law : among his disciples Qe Zez tuZimtis was to give
place to a very different rule-viz., Do not resist evil ’ (Mt. 5 39) never is, of things (Mt. 204 Lk. 1 2 5 7 Acts 4 19 Rom. 7 IZ
-and that is followed by a kindred command, ‘Love your Col. 4 I Phil. 4 8 etc. ).
enemies’ (Mt. 5 44). The noun Grcaro&q means ‘fair dealing’ between man and
More clearly and more consistently than any previous man (passing into the wider sense of virtuous conduct ; Acts 1035
24 25 Rom. 6 13 14 17 I Tim. fi I I 2 Tim. 2 22). Lk. uses it once
teacher, Jesus demanded a righteousness of the heart, only, ria, in 1 7 5 where it is parallel to ‘holiness,’ i.c., piety.
and forbade malicious and impure thoughts as sternly Acceptance of John’s baptism IS spoken of (Mt. 3 15) as included
a s the deeds of murder and lust to which they naturally in the ‘fulfilment of all righteousness’-LE., as confomahle to the
divine will which the Baptist announced. So, too, the Baptist
tend (Mt. 521-28). He went deeper still, and instead of is said to have come ‘in the way of righteousness’ (Mt. 213z),
reckoning the sum of good deeds, or even good thoughts, because he preached that course of conduct which righteousness
against the opposing sum of evil deeds and thoughts, required. The verb S c ~ a r & ,‘justify,’ in the N T always means
he insisted upon righteousness of character, a righteous- to pronounce ‘ust, never, either in the N T or in profane writers,
to make just (Ithe ap arent exception, Rev. 22 11, in the received
ness which is not accidental hut essential, a righteousness text arises from a Else reading). It is used of men who seek
which is one and indivisible, various as its manifesta- to prove themselves in the right (Lk. lOq), or to win credit
tions may be : ‘ A good tree cannot bring forth evil for righteousness with their fellow-men (Lk. 16 15). Men are
justified before God when they obtain his approval (Lk. 1814
fruit, neither can a corrupt bring forth good fruit’ Mt. 12 37=Lk. 735). In this sense Jesus, after his resurrection
(Mt. 718). No sacrifice was to be counted too severe was ‘justified in the Spirit ’(I Tim. 3 16) inasmuch as he received
when personal righteousness was in peril (Mt.529) or clear tokens of divine approval. As God justifies men, so men
the cause of righteousness to be advanced (Mt. 1921 may justify God, by confessing his righteousness (Lk.729 Ps.
516 [41 as quoted in Rom. 3 4 ; cp Mt. 1119), an application of
Mk.1021 Lk.1822). On the one hand, all was to the verb which is found in the Psalms of Solomon (2 16 3 5).
be done with a single eye fixed upon God and his See Diestel, 3DT 5 173f: ; Ortloph, Begriff von p,’ZL T
approval ( N t . 6 I etc. ) ; on the other hand, the service 1860 p. 401f:; Ryssel, Synonynre des
of God consisted in the service of man for God’s sake. 14. Literature. Wakren w. Gwten in den sem. Sprucken
(1872); Kautzsch, Dprivate des Stammer
It is on duty to man that the ‘ Sermon on the Mount’ yis, Tiib 1881 ; Smend, A TReZ. ; W. R. Smith, ProjAi’4
dwells throughout. that practical love for man of which $ 9 ; Sc&ally, Neil. K n k g im AZf. Israel; Wildeboer:
God himself is the supreme example, and hence an Z A T W 22 (1902). This last accentuates the juristic element
infinite vista opens up before the disciple, who can never and even in so early a passage as Judg. 5 I I translates sidkcith,
‘victories’ [of Yahwkl. Wildeboer’s comparison ofthe Syr. z2k/ui
feel that he has done enough since he is to be perfect as to be pure, to conquer, hdh ‘to be guilty,’ ‘to be defeated’ is
his Father in Heaven is perfect (Mt. 548). So, too, interesting and suggestive. W. E. A.
the Jewish notion of a contract with God who repays
service done disappears in that relation of son to
RIMMON (flm? ; PEMMAN [BL] -e [A]). Accord-
ing to the traditional text, the name of a god worshipped
father which Jesus removed from the circumference and at Damascus ( 2 K. 518) ; apparently it enters into the
set in the centre of religion. True, God rewards those
who do not reward themselves by ostentation and self- 1 The passage is difficult: hut it seems to mean that JoSeph
was too strict an observer to marry a woman who bad proved
complacency. But the quality of reward is the same unfaithful, and too kind to make a public example of her.
4109 4110
RIMMON RIMMON-PAREZ
name T AB - RIMMOW [q.v.], though, as we shall see, swear by Jerahmeel.’ It now becomes doubtful whether
another view of the phrase in I K. 1518 is at least ‘son of Tab-rimmon’ in I K. 1518 is correct. T h e
equally possible. king to whom Asa sent may have been, not ‘ Ben-hadad,
A more correct pronunciation of the name of this son of Tab-rimmon, son of Hezion, king of Syria, that
god would be RammHn. Both name and cultus of dwelt at Damascus,’ but ‘ Ben- hadad [ = Bir-dadda],
1. Ilimmon= this deity were, it is generally held, native of Beth-jerahmeel (or Rahbath-jeiahmeel?),
borrowed from Assyria, and certainly king of Aram ( = Jer+meel), who dwelt at (or, in)
Ass‘ Ramman. Ramman was the most prevalent name Cusham.’ It should also be noticed here that Elisha,
of the god of thunder and lightning (ideogram I M ) who who had such close relations with a king of Aram and
plays such an important part in the Babylonian Deluge- his general, was, the present writer suspects, a prophet
story, and is often represented as armed with the of the Negeb-Le., of a region which was originally
thunderbolt. The etymological meaning is ‘ the roarer’ JerGmeelite. T. K . C .
(rumlimu= ‘ to roar ’)-a name well suited to a thunder
god. The W. Semites appear to have had another
RIMMON ()irq-i. e . , pomegranate?-see N AMES ,
name for this god, viz., Addn or Daddu. and Oppert $ 69 ; or from Jerahmeel ’ ?-see R IMMON , i., 5 2).
( Z A 93198 [1894]) supposes that Adad was the oldest I. Josh. 1532 19 7 [AV REMMON]. I Ch. 4 32 Zech.
name of the deity. There is thought to he a remi- 1410. See E N - KIMMOIL ’, and cp A IN , I.
niscence of the identity of Addu (or Adad) and R a m m 2. The name of a rock where 600 fugitive Benjamites
in the compound form Hadad-rimmon (MT’s reading) found shelter for four months (Judg. 2 0 4 7 , fitm?, p ~ f i p w v
in Zecli. 1211 ; the editor of Zechariah, however, will [BAL]). There was a village of this name 15 R. m.
in this case he responsible for the strange form (but see N.of Jerusalem ( O S 1465 28798), identified by Robinson
Crit. Bib.). W e often find RammHn associated with (2113) with the mod. Rumm8nn,rather more than 3 m.
gama$ (the sun-god), like whom he is (in an inscription E. of Bethel, ‘ on and around the summit of a conical
of the Kassite period) called ‘lord of justice,’ T h e chalky hill and visible in all directions.’ This would
Masoretes may have confounded RammHn with rimm& be in the wilderness of Beth-aven (Josh. 1812). Birch
(see P OMEGRANATE ) ; though H. Derenbourg disputes (PEFQ, 1879. p. 128)objects that there are only a few
the accuracy of this representation, Rimmon, according small caves at Ramm6n, and refers to Consul Finn, who
to him, being the divinised pomegranate(Kohutl-‘a~ heard of a vast cavern in the Wady esSuweinit capable
Siudies, 120-125[1897]. of holding many hundred men. Canon Rawiisley in
See especially Jastrow Rel. of Bd. and Ass 156.161. and consequence visited the caverns in this Wady, which h e
Amer. lourn. ofSfm. Languages, 12 159-162 ;’hso Schi%der, describes in PEFQ, 1879, pp. 118-126. Birch, follow-
‘Ramman-Rimmon, St. KY.,1874, pp. 3 3 4 p ; F y c e , the
god Ramman,’ZA 2 331f: [; Zimmern, K A T ( 1 442 4511. ing Ges. The$. 1296. identifies the Rimmon of Judg.
According to Ohnefalsch-Rlchter(KYpros, Text, 115) the con. 2047 with the Rimmon ‘ u n d e r ‘ which Saul, with his
fusion between the Hebrew word for ’pomegranate’ ((\e, 600 men, tarried (x S. 142). T h e latter Rimmon was
rimm8n) and the name of the originally Assyrian god Ram& ‘ a t the limit of Geba’ (so read for Gibeah). See
is older than MT, and goes back possibly to the time of Ezekiel MIGRON.
(and earlier). In this connection he notes that pome anates 3. ‘ Rimmon ’ (rather ‘ Rimmonah. ’n$m), also
were attached to the vestments of the high-priest a n r t o the
columns of the tem le at Jrmsalem. On Carthaginkan stelze, appears in RV of Josh. 1 9 x 3 (E. boundary of Zebulun),
moreover, we find 8 e seated figure of the boy Adonis in the where AV again [see I ] gives ‘Remmon, with the
very place occu ied elsewhere by the column surmounted by a
pomegranate. 8hnefaIsch-Richter thinks that it was ‘an easy addition of ‘ -methoar.’ (RV ‘ which stretcheth ’) as if a
step’ to identify this tree-god Tammuz, to whom the ‘rimman compound name. T h e RV a t any rate recognises that
:as sacred, with the storm-god Ramman, and to call him the name is not compound ; it also does justice to the
Rimmiln.
According to Jensen there is a cylinder in the Hermitage article in y h g g (pefipova a/.uaOap sola [B] ; pcppvu?,
at St. Petersburg i n s c h e d with two divine names, the one pa&zprp, UYYOUU [A] ; e m apa8apc POUU [L]). W e may
Ramdinurn, the other Mratum. Taking this in connection render, with Dillmann and Kau. H S , ‘ and (their border)
with Assyrian texts which s ak of the god Atnurru (Le., the
god of the land Amurru, tE Amorite god) as the consort of extends to Rimmonah ( n p ) , and turns round (i~pm)to
ASratu, he infers that the Amorite god referred to is R a m d n u Neah (?).’ No doubt it is the Rimmono ( i i t ? , AV
z.e., the storm-god, also called by the Assyrians ‘the Lord df
the Mountain,’=p’, $yz, ‘the Baal of Lebanon.’ The ‘land Rimmon), or rather Rimmonah, of I Ch. 662 [77],
of Amurru’ was in fact ori inally the land of the Lebanon or probably also the DIMNAII( n p ) of Josh. 21 35, corre-
Antilihanus (cp Wi. G I 152f sponding to the modem Rummdneh on the SE. edge of
T h e present writer, however (see Cril. Bia.), suspects the plain of Battauf, 4 m. N. from Gath-hepher, and
much misunderstandine u in the traditional text of the 74 m. N. from Chisloth-tabor.
a.Jerahmeel, liarratives of the kings of Aram, which 4. Possibly MADMENAH [ q . ~ . ]in Is. 10 31 should rather be
IS specially visible in names. ‘Ben- ‘Rimmonah. T. K . C.
hadad.’ ~ ~~ ~ ~.
. for instance. Seems to - - be
~~~ ~~~ ~~

RIMMON (]if37; C[BAL],


~ ~ M MN ,J ‘ pomegranate ‘
equivalent to Bir-dadda, and Hazael to Haza’ilu, which
are attested as N. Arabian royal names in Assyrian in-
[so N AMES . 3 6 9 : Del. Pvol. 2051, or the Ass. divine
name Raniman [Lohr, cp KISH?], or [Cbe.] a dis-
scriptiuns ( K ATi2),148); ’ Damascus ’ is constantly mis-
tortion of the ethnic Jerahmeel), a Beerothite, the father
written for ‘Cusham’ ; and Rimmon, or rather Ramman,
of R ECHAB and B AANAH [q.v.] (zS. 42 5 9). Note that
may be regarded as a popular corruption of that famous
name ‘ Jerahmeel,’ which was not only an ethnic name,
‘ Rechab’ may be also from Jerameel,’ and that, a s
the story of S AUL (q...) shows, there was a strong
but also in all probability the name of a god (see Cn’t.
Jerahmeelite element in Benjamin (Che. ).
Bi6. on z K. 173of: ), When, therefore, weread in z K.
5 18 of Naaman’s accompanying his royal master to the RIMMONO O J b l ; T HN P ~ M M W N [BAL]; I Ch.
house of Rimmon, this is meant (not of the storm-god, 6 62 [77]). Rather Rimmonah. See R IMMON ii. 3.
but) of the national god of Jerahmeel, who may possibly
have been called Jarham or Yarham ( i e . , ni*, moon,’
RIMMON-PAREZ, RV Rimmon-Perez fiM?),(fie
with the Arabic ‘ mimation ’). It was not unnecessary a stage in the wandering in the wilderness, perhaps=
to warn the Israelites that Naaman was only by a special 1 G. A. Smith renders MT, so far as he thinks it possible,
indulgence allowed to do outward honour to Jarham or thus, ‘and those who ...
swear by their Melech,’ an< in a
note oints ont the disorder of the text. Wellh. reads, those
Jerahmeel, because there are several indications that the
who [ow themselves to Yahwe and swear by Milcom.’ But
worship of Jerahmeel had made its way into Judah some , like -i$~,
is very probably one of the current distortions
time before the fall of the state. See, e.g., Zeph. 1sb, :&En,. See crif.BiG.
where we should very probably read, ‘ ( I will cut o f ) 2 The much.disputed word pyn is probably a corruption of
those that prostrate themselves before the moon, that i>ny,a variant to 11~1, and nearer to the original form $rani*.
411 I 4112
RING RITUAL
Zarephath-jerahmeel [Che.] : Nu. 33 zpf. ( PEMMWN A MULETS ), to \vhich some spiiibolic figure was attached.
[PAMMU%, or pAMMwf?J]@Ap€C). S ~ ~ W A N D E R I N G Other S, terms for ear-ring were derived from the shape.
5 12. The 'dgiL (ivy) was round (Ezek. 1612, cp Ber-tholet on
RING. The signet ring was called in Hebrew Ezek. 1 7 Nu. 31 50). Another kind, n&vhfith (niD%!),
&dthdin (PnlPl)
. from its use ( J to seal), and fubbri'ath lit. drops (R\' pendants, AV collar), were probably
(nV2D) from its .form ( J to sink, As. pearls (Abulwalid compares Arab. natufut, a small,
'wet* @6d) ; also in Bibl. Arani. 't&:(WDTU) Dan. clear pearl), or single beads or gems attached to the
6 18 Er7], and in Targum for both @tiuim and tadbdath lobe of the ear ( 7 ~ 1 ,to drop), Judg. 826 (u~payyahls
( J t o cut, engrave).' ,See EHGKAPE. The seal was [B], 6ppLium EV@JWB [AL]), Is. 319(63&&pa?) worn by
worn, as it is still by some Arabians, on a cord, pU&Z Midianite men and Israelite women.
(See R IBBAND ), round the neck, Gen. 3818 ; later, on the The ancient versions gave other explanations ; Tg. &h,
right hand, Jer. 2224. In Cant. 86 both customs seem diadems, chaplets. Some Jewish intarpreters connected n?fi&ifh
coinbined. ' o n thine arm, on thy heart.' The oldest with nafaph(Ez. 30 34, see S T A C T Erendercapsulesof
)~~~ sweet-
form of signet worn by all Babylonians (Herod. 1195) smelling gum. See, further, OHIAMENTS,and the articles
there referred to. I. A.
was the cylinder, a large hole being bored through the
core to admit a soft woollen cord for suspension RINGSTRAKED (7&) Gen. 3035fl; see COLOLXS,
round wrist or neck.2 T h e Egyptian scarabaxs had 5 12.
a smaller hole to admit a fine wire. When used, the
BLNMAH ("$1,'shouting??' 5 7 4 ; A N A [ R ] . P A N -
seal was rolled over a piece of pipeclay which was laid
on an object or attached by a ribbon to a document NON [A], PENNA [L]). son of the Judahite SHIMON
(King, Antipre Gems. 140). It was from the Egyptian (q...); I Ch.420.
wire that the more convenient finger-ring was evolved. RIPHATH (na?, Gen.103 [PI, p l @ e [AEI,] EP.
Such rings were among the ornaments worn by Hebrew KO] ; Ch. 1 6 , JlB'?,, DIPHATE[XVnlg,and RV], ~ ~ 6 1 -
women after the exile, Is. 301 (vu.18-23 being an interpo-
lation). The word gdil ' ring ' in Cant. 5 r 4 EV, for
+a0 P I , PI@&€ [AI. pc4)ae [LI
a!),
RlPHATH [ V p . ] ,
;',isp"b:G~Pe~
one of the
which RV'"g. preferably suggests ' cylinder,' seems to be Gen. 103 I Ch. 16f. According to the theory which
used as a simile of the fingers of the hand (BDB, Bu. finds N. Arabian influence and interests pervading the
ad loc. ). earlier chapters of Genesis (see P ARADISE , 5 6), 'Gonier'
The transference of Judah's signet to Tamar had no represents ' Jerahmeel,' ' Ashkenaz' comes from ' Kenaz '
special significance-he simply gave her as a pledge an (or Asrhur-Kenaz), ' Riphsltb ' from * Zarephath.' T h e
object which could obviously be identified with him.' transformation has been systematic. On the time-
Qn the signet was probably a precious stone, mostly honoured theory, however, which bases itself on M T , we
the ifihnn (see O N YX ). on which was engraved a figure must look far away from N. Arabia. Joscphus thought
or inscription, E x . 28x1. Hence in an Oriental court of Paphlagonia ; Bochart and Lagarde of the Bithynian
the conveyance of the signet attested a royal message river ,$fi/3as and the distant , $ ~ / 3 a v ~ on i u the Thracian
( I K. 21 8). and in many lands was a mode of investing
BOS~OFUS. But if TOGARMAH [ p . v . ] is really Til-
officers with power (Gen. 4142 Esth. 3 IO I MRCC. 6 r5 garimniu, on the border of Tabal, Riphath may be
Jos. Ant. xx. 22). There is no indication that the identified with Bit Burutd (or BuritiX), a district-men-
wedding-ring was used in OT times; hut in Egypt tioned several times with Tahali (see Schr. KGF 176)-
some sneh custoin anciently prevailed. It should be whose king was an ally of Urartu and Musku. The
added that a G a ~ ~ l i X i owas
v placed on the hand of the syllable -aS or -is niay be regarded as a siiffix (so first
prodigal s o u on his restoration to hi$ father's house Hal. REI, 17164). T h e transposition of 6 (or p ) and
(LB. 16 Z Z ) , Y is no difficulty. T h e suggestion is plausible, if M T
A7d~cm(m?) conveys the meanings of both an ear-ring may safely be followed. T. K. C.
and a nose-ring, though usually the fuller form d # e m
a. Ear-w, ha-dph (lm 011) is used for the nose-ring. RISSAH (at?; AECCA [B], p. [AF], Ap. [LI), a
In Judg. 8 n 4 , however, where the singular stage in the wandering in the wilderness ; Nu. 3321f.
nose-nng' is used, it is probable that ndusem alone See WAXLIERINGS, WII.DERNESS OF.
means nose-ring. The whole of this passage is, how- RITHMAH (VJnl named from the DQ? or juniper
ever, regarded as a late gloss by Wellhausen, Moore, tree, 5 103; if we should not rather read Ramath,
Budde. andothers. Neither nose-rings nor ear-ringsu rere P A e A M A [ B A F ] , p & M A e & [I.]), a stage in the wander.
worn by males, though Pliny ( N H 1137 [SO]) says that ing in the wilderness (Nu.3818l;). See W ANDERINGS .
Oriental men wore them, and, if Judg. 824 be genuine
Midianite soldiers did SO.^ T h e nose-ring was put RITUAL
through the nostril and hung over the mouth. Robertson
[The facti and theories about Hebrew ritual are dealt
Smith explains that all such ornaments were designed
with in many articles, among the most important of
as amulets and protectors to the orifices, a4 well a5
which are the following : S ACKIFICE , T EMPLE (I§3 4 8 ) ,
for ornament (cp RS@)453, and n. 3 ) . The ring put
N ATURE W ORSHIP , A LTAR , M ASSEBAH. TAREKXACLE,
through the nose of beasts (&@, ' hook ') is sometimes
A RK , D ISPERSION , S YNAGOGUE . On the ritual of the
associated with n&m (Ex. 3 5 ~ 4AV 'bracelets,' RV
nations contemporary with Israel the reader may consult
' brooches ') ; cp H o o ~ 2. , ARAM,&SYRIA, B ABYLON , E GYPT , M OAB , A M M O N ,
Several fornis of ear-ring are noticed in the OT.
C ANAAN , PHCENICIA, H ITTITES , S CYTHIANS , ZOROAS-
The l&iSZ?iz of Is. 3u, were perhaps ear-ring5 (see
T R I A N I S M , etC.
Of those nations, however, so great an influence on
1 ffdtlLknrcth, Gen. 38 ast is €em. coll.~'sealingapparatus.'
the civilisation of the whole of hither Asia was exercised
Ball suggests reading O g n ? or nbnn?; Holzinger partly by one, the Babylonian, that the facts about its ritual
up rovea this suqgartion. acquire special importance. On the other hand the
f Illustrations Ln Perrot.Chipiez, ~ r intA S S . 2, figs. r 3 r 8
3 The earliest dated Eg ptian cylindcr is as old as 3800 B.C. amount of first-hand information on the subject is
(Flinders Petrie, Hist. ./&y.bpt, 1.55). unique and, besides, not generally accessible. It is pro-
1 Wellhausen (Ar.FZcfdCJ),164x) thinks that the cord from posed, accordingly, to give here some acconnt of thc
which tha gigpet hnn was also an amulet. This would account
for the insistence on %e transference of the cord in the narrative nature, and ceremonial institutions, of the Babylonian
in Genesis. sacrificial ritual. In doing this the points in which it
5 On these grounds Moore holds that ear-rings are probably resembles, or differs from, the ritual of the O T will be
meant. For the wearing of nose-rings hy Indian boys in order
to pass as girls and avert the evil.eye, see Frazer, Puwanirrr, indicated, and a brief compakison of the twe systems
2 266. given.]
41x3 4x14
RITUAL RITUAL
CONTENTS gods. Of vegetable products we find frequent mention
Names for sacrifice (5 I ) . of wine (Raninu),must ( R n n m n u ) , date wine ( S ~ ~ Q Y U ,
Objects offered, age, etc. (0 23). prepared from corn and dates or honey and dates, cp
Time and place (B 4). Human sacrifice (s 9). Neb. 1035, Nabun 612, 871 ; i?w, cp Nu. 2871, honey
Antiquity of sacrifice (%5). Lustration (4 IO).
Summary($ SI). (di$u, dm),cream (&im2tu, nxpn), a mixture prepared
ASSYRIO-BABYLONIAN R IT UAL. from various ingredients and containing oil and fat
A short account of Babylonian sacrifices has been (invariably written GAR N i - D e - A ;probably mirsu is
already given in the Supplement to Die CuZtus-tafeZ von to be read: cp Nab. 912, Cyr. 3276, Arab. maris,
Sippar (Joh. Jeremias, Leipsic, 25-32 [1889]). The ’ date-stone ’), the choice produce of the meadow (slmat
question of how far this system is original and how far ~ p p ~ garlic
~ i ) ,(?Summu, old), first-fruits ( d S 2 t i ; n-@N> ;
it is related to what we find elsewhere has received little Siznh. 161 Kuj. l g ) . l Food specially prepared for the
or no attention. T h e treatment of such questions in gods was called akal taknu (4 R. 61, 62n). with which
the difficult sphere of religious institutions being always should be compared the analogous expression nn$
involved in uncertainty, it appears to be more than ever nilggg. Upon the table of the gods were laid 12, or
appropriate in regard to sacrifice, as an institution 3 x 12. loaves of A&AN, that is to say wheaten flour, as
common to all peoples, to explain the same or similar shewbread (cp Zimmern, Beifruge9833 104138 : ZVR
ideas not as borrowed the one from the other, but as 55206 5623a ; Craig. Relig. Texfs166 ; King, Magic
both drawn from the same source. I n justification of and Sorcery 408) ; also aka2 mutki, that is to say, un-
the common designation Assyrio-Babylonian it is to be leavened bread, is several times mentioned (cp Lev.
noted that, apart from a few modifications in their 24 5 ) . Special abundance and splendour characterised
Pantheon, the religion of the Assyrians agrees through- the vegetable offerings of the Neo-Babylonian and Neo-
out with that of the Babylonians. Of this agreement, Assyrian kings (cp Pognon, Inscriptions de W’ddi
which was maintained in spite of all political strifes, we Brzka :Neb. Grof. 1 1 6 8 : Neb. Grof. 226 8 : Neb.
have a historical attestation in the fact that ASur-&&pal Grof. 3 7 8 ; Schr. K B 2 7 8 ) . They were in the form
had the MSS of the Babylonian priestlyschools collected, of the daily sattukku, the state sacrifice, a sort of
supplied with an Assyrian interlinear translation, and representation of the whole agriculture of the land.
preserved in his state archives (see 4 R).* Nebuchadrezzar lays on the table of Marduk and
Sacrifices were called kirbannu or kurbannu (more Sarpanit the choicest produce of the meadow, fruit,
rarely Rurbdnu, Rifrubu ; in ordinary usage, ‘ back- herbs, honey, cream, milk, oil, must, date-wine, wine
1, Names for sheesh, alms.’ A much -commoner
sacrifice. word is niku, ‘ t o be bent, show
from different vineyards. Still more abnndant is the
offering of Sargon ( K B278), a king who offers finally
reverence, offer homage’ (cp for this not to the gods but to himself. His splendid offering
meaning Del. Assyr. H W B ) , used o r drink offerings is a brilliant display of his royal wealth, at which even
(Deluge, 147; cp n.$]!n patem) and also of bloody the gods must be amazed.
sacrifices. The commonest bloody sacrifice mentioned is that‘of
The root of niku is nakd ‘to be empty ’ 11. I ‘to pour out.’ I t the lamb (written Lu n i @ or ninu).
was probably the pouring out of thd blood that led to the The expression Lu Nita, often occurring in contracts, is to be
trans erence of ni@ from its original application ‘ drink offering‘ read RaMmu or s‘a ( Z g ) and to be rendered ‘lamb, kid.’ For
to the meaning ‘blood offering.’ A rarer word than ni@ is zibd
(Khors. 172), Heb. n?!, .&a&. For ‘ drink offering’ we find also ‘goat’ we find the words bu~ndu, Iuj#aru (in cantracts), urfzu
az(s) b ‘an old mature lamb.’ Of other quadrupeds we hear of
the words mu&&um, ma&/Idru (in contracts), ramku. T o sa&ificial oxen ( p m a & & uor uZuj ma&), bullocks ( # a m ,
nzin&ih (n!??), ‘food offering,’ corresponds &rkfnu(Del. H W B la), gazelles (Sabftu), wild kine (Ziftu,;I&). The following
sur&u), a word formerly incorrectly rendered ‘altar.’ The birds were used for sacrifice; doves, geese (us- tu^), cocks(buvkz2,
regular stated offering (tgwzfd, Tp?) was called satfu&& (sat- 4 R 26476; Talm. N p ) , peacocks (paspasu), pheasants
iakam ‘constant’) or g i n d , properly ‘right.’ Both words (?#asnu; Nabun. 672 T ; Talm. P’D?). Fish (nanl) are always
indicate the yearly, monthly, rarely (Nabun. 1 4 4 3 ) daily, con- mentioned along with ‘birds of heaven’ (irglr famb).
tribution to the temple for the support of the sacrifice and the
priests. A synonymous word isguQ6u orgukkdnu. The free. For a bird sacrifice see Botta, Nineveh, pl. 1 1 0 ; for
will offering, Heb. &&i&ih (?t??!), is called nindabd (nidbu). fish offerings see Menant 253.
No special prescriptions as to age are known. Lu
For ‘ to sacrifice ’ the commonest word is na@. ninli probably always indicates, like yaXaO~vd(Herod.
For the sake of comparison the following may be mentioned
3a. Age and 1183), the young sucking lamb. We
from the many other expressions in use : e#&%, Heb. fip? ;5 other details. know from the contracts that victims a
?ab&u, Heb. n& ; +&&u, Heb. ”1: : riksa r d a s u , “to pre-
pare an offering.’ Of special importance, moreover, are the i ~-~~ old were IDreferred. as in P in
vear
d marat Satti, like n14j :1 or ’d ns ;
~ ~

Leviticus ( ~ p or
expressions in purification texts : k a r d h (2’?p,; often used
of pouring water, occurring with p [notwithstanding Del. Nabon. 1961 2651 2722 69915 7681). Mention is also
NWB], in Rassam2 168) and kapdru (K 3245, $ass.) ‘to wipe,’ made of victims of two, three (~Veb.3991), and four
then ‘to clear, purify,’a meaning that is important in its bearing years of age (Cyr. 1174).
on Heb. k $ j w (% Cp IIVR
? 51.
13) 17 33 ; Zimmem, Beitruge With regard to the condition of the animals the
12226. The offerer of the sacrifice is called k d n h or &?I nikl requirements were stricter : faultless growth (tatriktu),
(cp Marseilles Sacrificial Table, n2r 5~2). large size (?ab&), fatness (duStt2, m a d ) , physical purity
It should be specially noted that everything that the (ebbu, eZh ;‘ pure, shining ’), and spotlessness ( t u k h l u ;
land produced was offered to the gods without dis- Herod. 721 T&U TGU ~ p o p d ~ ~ v Cp ). Zimmern,
Whilst in Israel it was only the Beitruge 10072. In divination, however, the use of
2. Objects tinction.
o * ~ ~ e d produce
. of a people devoted to cattle-rearing unsound victims was permitted ; in the prayers to the
and agriculture that was offered (cp Di. sun-god (ed. Knudtzon, 73) we often read : izib &I
Lev.(2),379)-and this was still further narrowed by the RaZumu ildtika Sa ana bin‘ b a d ma@ &a@ : ‘Grant
exclusion of fruit, honey, and all sweet or fermented that the lamb of thy divinity, which is used for
preparations on the one hand, and of beasts of chase inspection, may be imperfect and unsound.‘ It
and fish on the other-in the fruitful lands between the is well known that in the Israelitish cultus, thank-
two rivers every kind of produce was freely offered to the offerings need not be.faultless (Lev. 2223).
T h e victim was as a rule a male, yet females also
1 Abbreviations used in this article. K followed by a number were used (Sanh. BQV.33 Cyr. 1174 Cyr. 2471). It
=some one of the tablets of the Koyunjik collection In the Brit.
Mus. ; Neb. Nu&%. C . =BabyZonische Texfe, Inschmyten
y 1 The incense (bfru, Rutrinnu, nla? : formerly wrongly
des Ncbukadnezar, Nabuna‘id, Cyrus, published by T. N.
Strassmaier (Leipsic, r887) : Menant, PG=Les piewes gravies read taminnu, was made from precious beibs (Ja’iItu nknp) and
a2 Za Haute Asie (Paris, 1883). odoriferous woods.
411.5 4116
RITUAL RITUAL
was probably always female victims that were used in weapons for the fight (kakktia uZZiZ), if in hunting
purification ceremonies : Earat b u k t t i Zd p i t & ? , the he secures his prey, if he formally commemorates
skin of a she-lamb still intact’ (4 R 25 35c ; cp 4 R 28 his ancestors-in each and all of these cases he offers
no. 3 1 1 5 R 51 5 1 ; Nimr. E$. 44, 60). Compare sacrifice to the gods. It is a relief amid the annals of
with this the prescription of a she-goat one year old for cruelty and pride of Assyrian rulers when we read in
the sin offering of the individual (Nu. 1527). their boastful accounts: ana iZdni Zu ni@ akki, ‘ I
T h e victim was probably seldom placed entire (kEZiZ, presented to the gods an offering.’ For innumerable
$53) on the altar. T o begin with, the remarkably instances of this kind we may refer generally to KB.
small size of the altars that have been found shows that T h e ordinary place of sacrifice was the temple.
only certain parts of the victims were offered. T h e Mountain and spring also were, in accordance with the
altar of Sargon’s palace is 32 inches high: that universal Semitic ideas (cp Baudissin, Studien, 2 143).
from Nimriid. actually only 2 2 inches.’ That the regarded as sacred spots, specially suited for sacrifices.
flesh was boiled, as in Israel in early times, is shown After the flood Xisuthros offered his sacrifice ‘on the
by 5 R 61,15, where the priest receives, along with top of the mountain‘ (ina zikkurat .hit) ; and so
other shares, a large pot of meat-broth (dinar ml Se’ri). ASur-bani-pal (389) on the mountain Halman. and
With regard to the details of sacrificial ritual and Shalmanassar (Co. 103)at the source of the Euphrates.
practice our sources tell ns little ; the sculptures represent T h e origin of sacrifice lies, according to Babylonian
as a rule only the preparatory steps (cp Menant 2 5 4 ; ideas, beyond the limits of human historv : it existed
Layard, 1Monum. of Nineveh 224). The usual form of ~. llntiquits from the time when the world was made
offering was burning by fire (ana makldti a&). We (uZtu Bm s d t mdti). Gods and genii
know nothing of special ceremonies performed with the of sawifice* are often represented as sacrificing ICD
blood in the Babylonian ritual, such as were usual in Menant, PG 2 3 7 5 7 53). Sin is called the founier’df
Israel and ancient Arabia (Wellh. Ar. Heid. 113). In a free-will offerings (mukln nindab2; 4 R 933) ; Adar,
text published by Zimmern (Beitruge, 1-26),which the god of offerings and drink offerings (iZn mi&ri li
describes the purification of the king’s palace, the lintels rumkuti; z R 7 3 5 2 R 6767). As the formation of
of the palace are smeared with the blond of a lamb ( i n a the earth was immediately followed by the institution of
ddmi urlzi Suatum) ; compare for this interesting places of worship, so the newly created man was charged
passage Ex. 1 2 7 . It may be remarked in passing that with religious duties towards the deity (Del. Das bab.
we learn from 4 R 32 30 that there were three ways of WeZtschb~fungseposs111). PaZd&udamrtku u2Zad nikd
preparing the victim : Str Sa penti baSZu Sa tumri, 6aZdtu dtbr b ta@u a m i .. . ‘ the fear of God brings
‘ baked, boiled, smoked flesh.’ The offering consisting grace, sacrifice enlarges life and prayer (frees from)
of vegetable food was probably consumed by the sin.’ After the deluge ( 1 4 7 8 )Xisuthros sacrifices to
sacrificers. A drastic exposure of this p i a fraus is the gods ; ‘then did I turn to the four winds, poured
given us in the apocryphal Bel and the Dragon. out a drink offering, offered a cereal offering on the top
The following parts are expressly mentioned in 2 R of the mountain; seven incense pans I set forth, and
44, 14-18gh 1-56: head (ka&&du), neck (kiSadu), spread under them calamus, cedar wood, and rig gir
3b. parts of flank (pdtu), breast ( i r t u ) ,rib ($d), loin (onycha?).‘ In the old Babylonian Nimrod-epos (4460)
victim used. ( s d n u ) , tail (zibbatu), spine (e& +u), we read in the account of the Amores I’enerik: taramlma
heart (Zi66u), belly ( k a r f u ) , intestines am82 r2a Sa kanamma iSpukakki umifamma utabbahakki
(&af2),kidney (kalftu),knuckles (+?wsinnbt$). In the u n i k l f i ; ‘ thou hast loved the shepherd who continually
contracts (cp especially the important texts, Strassm. brought drink offerings to thee, daily sacrificed kids to
Neb. 247 and 416 ; also Peiser, Ba?vZonische Vertrage, thee.
IO?) many parts are mentioned that are still etymo- T h e inscriptions of the old Babylonian king Gudea
logically obscure (u-ith two of them, S2r gabbu and S&- already contain notices about sacrifices. On the New
R a m i si& cp Talm. +in tail ; and q q a flank). Year festival (see Schr. K B 326 61) he offers to the
Sacrificial flesh was probably not taboo as amongst the goddess Ba’u amongst other things a cow, a sheep, six
Israelites and the Phcenicians (Movers, Phon. 2 118); lambs, seven baskets of dates, a pot of cream, palm
according to a late statement of the Epistle of Jeremiah pith (?), fifteen chickens, fishes, cucumbers, as sattukku
(u. 28 [Baruch 6281) the Babylonian priests sold the or regular sacrifice. A rich source of information upon
sacrificial flesh, and their w-ives also cured it. the sacrificial arrangements in the later Babylonian
No definite prescriptions as to the times of sacrifice period is to be found in the thousands of Babylonian
have reached us. T h e Zakmuku or New Year’s feast, contracts in which bills and receipts connected with
the Akttu feast held in honour of Marduk temple revenues and dues, as well as lists relating to
4. Time
and place. (+6. BOYS.48), were signalised by proces- the regular sacrifices, bulk very largely. l
sions and sacrifices. Daily sacrifices are Sacrifice was in the hands of the priestly caste, who
often mentioned ( N d . Grot. 116 226) ; an animal sacri- -
were held in the highest esteem and enioved - , sDecial
fice, in TigZ.-pil. 7 xu (cp I S. 206). In the ritual tablet 6. Performasce. privileges.2 So great indeed was the
for the month Ultilu (cp Lob, Historia Sabbati, I ~ o J ? ) , esteem in which thev werc held in
published in 4 R 3233. it is prescribed that the daily Babylonia in earlier times that even ;he king needed
sacrifice, consisting of a ‘i2Eh and a minbah, should be their mediation for sacrifice and prayer (cp Menant,
offered once at each rising of the moon and appearance P G 1128 f:). In Assyria. however, the king reserves
of the dawn, fourteen times by night and fourteen times for himself the supreme priesthood, calling himself the
by day (cp Ex. 2 9 3 8 Nu. 283). A morning offering is exalted high-priest and sacrificing to the god w-ith his own
mentioned in the text published by Zimmern, Beitruge hand (Per.-Chip. Assyria, 41 [Assyrie, 4551 ; Menant.
10069. Sacrifice as a free expression of prayer and de- P G 2164). Just as Ezekiel in his ordering of the priest-
pendence (thank-offerings, f&ZEh, can hardly have been hood assigns to the king in the public worship an inde-
known to the Babylonians). as the highest product of pendent and important position, so we repeatedly read in
the religious life, is not severely confined to definite the liturgical tablets preserved in 4 R 3233 : rt’u niSt
times. On the contrary, every important event of rabdti nindubrifu ukdn; ‘ t h e shepherd of the great
life is celebrated by a spontaneous offering of sacrifices peoples shall bring his offering.’ I n the contracts there
just as in ancient Israel. If the king of the Assyrians is frequent mention of the king’s offering and of that of
returns victorious from a military expedition, if in the crown prince (fa a$aZ S a m . ) ; Nabon. 2658 3322
repairing a temple he finds an ancient foundation 1 A good index to the relative texts is provided by H. L.
stone, if he dedicates his palace, if he consecrates his Tallquist, Die Sgracfie der Confracte Nabona’ids (Helsingfors,
1890).
2 Diodorus Siculus (2 29) has given us a vivid and adequate
1 Perrot-Chipiez, A r t in Clurlaka and Assyria, 1 2 5 6 5 account of their functions.
132 41’7 4x18
RITUAL RITUAL
59410. As in Israel, the priests had assigned to them tion of the offering as a gift and a meal of the deity
definite portions of the offerings. According to the ritual to that of a finer and, so to speak, spiritual, apper-
of the Sun-temple at Sippar the priests received the loins, ception of that which was brought in sacrifice was
the skin, the ribs, the sinews, the belly, the chitterling, made a t a coniparatively early period. So much is
the knuckles of all cattle and lambs that were offered, indicated by the fact that even from ancient times prayer
as well as a pot of sacrificial broth ( 5 R 61 col. 5). In was associated with sacrifice. I n the pictorial repre-
the contracts minute details are met with as to priestly sentations of sacrificial scenes we constantly find him
dues (Neb. 247, 416 ; Peiser, Bab. Vertr. 107). It is who prays in close association with him who offers.
interesting to observe that in Babylonia as in .Israel T h e gesture of prayer was threefold : n i J @&ti,Iapdtu
(see Lev. 21 1 6 8 ) rules were laid down respecting the @ti, Zubdnu appi-lifting up of the hands, folding of
freedom from bodily blemish that was required in priests. the hands, casting down of the countenance.
In a priestly catechism of Sippar (K. 2486+4364, The purpose of sacrifice is, invariably, to inflnence
published by Craig, Religious Texts, Leipsic, 1895) the deitv in favour of the sacrificer. Man brings gifts
we read as follows :- to the gods in order that they G a y be
Ummirnu mud12n&irpi&ti i&ni r&tZ a#iIra Sa irammu Purpose' moved therebv to reciprocity-to showina
ina fuppi P kdir tujpi ina mabar i b SamaS 71 ilu Ramman a favourable disposition in'return.i When the kings
utamm&l&a uSaE8asu lnumn a#iI amdl bard; and farther Esarhaddon and ASur-bani-pal were seriously menaced
on : amel iKakhn f a zan& el& 3 Sa2 ina kitti P wzinz2tiJu
kklulu ana nzaLar ih &zai rl iZu Ramman' aFar dirk P by the inroads of the Gimirri they multiplied their
p1crd2 tehi a6il &nlZ b a d 3a zarufu Ia e l l s P Sf2 ina K i f f i 3 offerings and prayer (see Knudtzon, l . c . ) . In the
mindti sir l&.Sukluh z d t u knir hfpI2 sin& nag& ubirnw ina liturgies of that period a standing expression is as
Sk.bi ... null% issyhba &igaIZu >u#bRih4 jilfiihnu . .. Id follows :-z'na libbi Ralumi anni iasisamma anna kZna
na?irpar@ Sa ilu Sanras P iIu Ramman. Suknamma; ' because of this lamb offered in sacrifice
s A wise man who guards the secrets of the great gods arise thou and establish faithfulness and mercy.'
shall cause his son whom he loves, with tablet and pen So, in like manner, the gods are represented as rejoic-
to take oath before SamG and RammBn, and the son ing over the sacrificial gifts brought them by their human
of a magician shall teach him when to do so. A priest worshippers (K. 1547, rev. X I : igdamrd maSfakKaPKPia
who is noble in descent, and whose clothing (?) and asZZia inn &b libbi ildni igdamm ; ' accomplished a r e
measurement (?) are perfect, shall present himself before my cleansing sacrifices, to the gladdening of the
&ma5 and RammBn in the place of augury and oracle. hearts of the gods are my sacrifices of lambs acconi-
T h e son of a priest whose descent is not noble and who plished'). T h e feature of joy and gladness which so
is not perfect iii clothing (?) and in measure, who has markedly characterised the sacrificial meals of pre-exilic
squint (2) eyes, broken teeth, bruised thumbs, boils or Israel *J?! Dt. 1z7 ; SACRIFICE, 0 18)is by n o
swellings on his feet ... shall not keep the temple of
('7

means absent from the Babylonian functions. Thus i n


Sam& and R a m m h . ' 3 R 3662 we read (akul a k d h fiti kurunnv ningutu
Sacrifice rests ultimately on the idea that it gives
Suhun nu'id iZdtt) ' eat food, drink must, make music,
pleasure to the deity (cp Di. Leu. 376). For Israel, honour my god '. Predominant, however, over this
the conception of sacr%'ice as a meal for
.,
mental ides. Yahwk is reflected in such expressions as
joyous note which finds such marked expression among
the peoples of classical antiquity there is found in the
Gen. 821 Dt. 3310 ('3, on$). I n the Baby-
lV. Babylonian ritual a feature which is common to all
lonian records, the gods feast in heaven (4 R 1959: Semitic religions-the element of propitiation. Here,
iI&i rabdti i g i n u hucn'nnu aka1 Sam2 eZZu kurunnu of course, we must divest ourselves of all theological
damga Sa ld i@at k d t i ikhalu; ' the glorious gods smell preconceptions, and put aside all such notions as that
the incense, noble food of heaven; pure wine, which of an atoning efficacy attaching to the blood as the seat
no hand has touched, do they enjoy') ; they eat the of life, or of a divine wrath that expends itself upon the
offering (4 R 1756: akalfu akul nigdSu mubur; ' e a t sacrificial animal, or even of a ratio vican'a, when we
his food, accept his sacrifice ') ; they inhale with physical speak of the idea of propitiation as underlying Baby-
delight the savour of the offering (Deluge, 151 : ildni lonian sacrifices. T h e similarity of the words and forms
e;inu ergfa ildni e;inu ertfa @ a ktma sum68 eli bZZ does not necessarily involve similarity in the religious
ni@ iptahrd; ' t h e gods scent the savour, the gods conception. T h e Babylonians possessed the same
scent the sweet savour ; like flies do they gather them- words for sin (hit+). grace (annu), propitiation ( p i d u )
selves together about the offerer' ; cp the analogous as the Hebrews had ; but it is certain that they did not
expression ph'? n-7, Gen. 821); the gods love the offering associate with the words the same thoughts. At t h e
that man brings (Asum.125 : nadan &ifu ildni rabdt2 same time it is significant and by no means accidental-
Fa Jam2 & irsitinz iramu ; ' the glorious gods of heaven it has its roots firmly planted in the very nature of the
and earth love the gift of his sacrifice '). What is active religious ideas involved-that every offering offered with
in the offering is the voluntary surrender of a private the object of averting evil of any kind whatsoever was
possession (Tigl. 7 7 : ana bi8Zat libbita akki ; ' I sacri- associated with the notion of a propitiatory, cleansing,
ficed as my heart enjoined'). As a subject into the purifying efficacy. I n a hymn to SamG we read
presence of his king, so does man come into the presence ( 4 R 1746 : am2Zu apil iliSu 2nun arnam emid mefri-
of his god with gift and tribute. I n a text, printed in tufu mar;iiibSd marsif ina mur;i ni'il iZu SamaS ana
4 R 20, which describes the solemn xeturn of the god n i f k b i i a kdlamma akalSu a h 2 nigdSu muburma ilam.
Marduk from Elam to Babylon and the sacrificial feast Zlkat ana id& Sukun ina kibitika Enissu li$patir
then celebrated in his honour, the imperial sacrifice is araniu linnasit), ' m a n , the son of his god-sin,
described in the following terms (rev. 22 $ ) : Samd transgression lies upon him. His physical strength is
&aZZdfunu i&um &i:iJSa tdmtum mi&irtizfu fadd impaired, he languishes in disease. 0 SamaS. behold
r n b i u hihdaSj26 Sut 16 ma@-& mala Sunnd Zifdnu the uplifting of my hands, eat his food, accept his sacri-
hahitti bizamnu ndfu ana biZbilum. A s h fice, 0 God. Take off his fetters. At thy command
di&u cZup ma@ sibu Surruhu ;2<i in in nu armannu may his sins be taken away, his transgressions blotted
t&;+ erZE t d h u ; ' the heaven pours out its abundance, out. ' Other passages subjoined explain themselves.
the earth its fulness, the sea its gifts, the mountains 4 R 5447 : mubur kadrafu Ziki gid8.h ina kakkar
their produce ; their incomparable offerings, everything hlm2 mahraka ZittalZak; 'accept the gift he brings,
that can be named, their heavy tribute do they bring to receive his ransom money (pi); let him walk before
the lord of a l l ; lambs are slaughtered, great oxen
sacrificed in herds, the sacrifice is made'rich, incense 1 C p Kin , Ba&Zon. Magic 17 28 (1896) : m"r+ka kutrinnu
iriSu fabu %inis napZisannida Simi kaBa-ai, I present you
is prepared, a sweet smelling savour mounts up, with incense, agreeable vapour ; look at me truly, hear m y
delicious odour.' Probably the step from the concep- words.'

4119 4120
RITUAL RITUAL
them on the ground of peace.’ 4 R. 55, obv. 211 ; niJ ‘she (the daughter of Anu) has drunk the satisfying
kdtifu ilifu ana rnakdri u nindabkfu ana r d m i ildni5u blood of men, flesh that cannot be eaten, bones that
28ndt ittiFu ana Sulmi; whereby his god accepts the cannot be gnawed.’ T h e probability is that the Baby-
lifting up of his hands and takes pleasure in his free- lonians practised human sacrifice secretly without form-
will offerings, whereby the angry gods turn themselves ally taking it up into the recognised worship. In the
propitiously towards him.’ 4 R. 577 (akdlP is nap- older period (of which we have a reminiscence in Gen.
Saltum Sa ina pdnika kunnzr Zipsusu Zimnda) : ‘ the food 22). as well as in times of religious declension ( 2 K.
and the fatness which is spread out before thy face, may 1731), the Israelites doubtless borrowed the practice of
it take away mine evil.” The following remarkable human sacrifice from the peoples in their immediate
passage, from a hymn to Marduk, stands unfortunately neighbourhood.
alone (K. 246; cp 2 R. 1 8 5 3 : amtlu muttaliku ina As for offerings to the dead, which indeed are
n2k r8mP ~ulmne‘Rima kB maffi ZimmaSES), ‘May the forbidden in the O T as relics of heathenism (Dt.
man plagued with fever be purified like shining metal 2614), but the practice of which was not unknown
through a gracious peace offering.’ In contracts the even at a late date (Jer.167). evidence of their use
expression alap tap&;, ‘ redemption ox’ ( N e b . 132 12 among the Babylonians and Assyrians is of frequent
2133) often occurs; cp with this Lev.43 (nx& 12). occurrence (see A. Jeremias, Vorstellungen vom Leben
The idea of atonement in the OT has found its classical nach dem Tode, 53). T h e Descent of IStar closes with
expression in the kappfireth of P (see M ERCY- SEAT, 2). the charge of the priest to the necromancer : ‘ i f she
In this connection it is important to observe that the root 79, vouchsafe not liberation to thee, then turn thy face
is attested in Babylonia also, kapriru in the rituals meaning ‘to towards her and pour out pure water with precious
cleanse,’ ‘to purify.’ 4 R. lti 40: amllu rnuttaiikrt mar iZ& balsam before Tarnmuz the husband of her youth.’
Ru##irma: ‘Cleanse (with the water of the oath) the man ASur-bani-pal (Lehmann, SamaSFumukin, 2 23) says :
lagued with fever, the son of his god.’ 4 R. 27 54: aklla Xi
!. amdlziFuafuku#jima; ‘cleanse the unclean foods’ (of the
a adi kispi ndk mC ana 8kimmC Sarrdni aiikzit ma&+ Sa
same). In K. 3245 the precept frequentlyrecursS a v u fuka#par S u b t u k arkus: ‘for the lament of the pourer out of
-‘do thou, 0 king, purify,’ as also the phrase taRpirfu of the water on behalf of the spirits of my ancestors, the kings,
ceremony ofpurification (klma fakfirriti tu&te’ft4-‘ when thou
hast accomplished the rites of purification ’). Whilst the phrase I gave orders because it had been abolished.’ In the
already alluded to+?& &Zm& (corresponding to the Heb. burying-places of Sirghula and Elbibba were discovered
SPlem, which, as we see from I S. 139 2 S. 24 25 Ezek.45 17 traces of offerings to the dead : calcined date stones, bones
denotes a purificatory offering : cp S ACRIFICE, 0 r r t i s of onl; of oxen, sheep, birds. Representations of sacrifices to
occasional occurrence, we frequently in contracts meet with the
word Snllntu, Sirlammu, which in accordance with the prima? the dead are given in Perrot, 2.6. 361,and Menant, PG
meaning of the root JaZalGrnu may be rendered ‘turning towards 254. T h e dirge as a Babylonian institution is attested
(on the part of the deity), and taken in the sense of a propitiatory also by Ezek. 814. T h e sacrifice of chastity, mentioned
sacrifice. Cp Nabun. 214 9 362 3 641 4 161 2, Cyr. 229 3 with the
saftrrkku named in Nabun. 799 15 17. by Herodotus ( l r g g ) , is bluntly described in the Epistle
A few words must be said on the subjects of human of Jeremiah (v.43 [=Baruch 6433). Even in the Nimrod-
sacrifice, offerings to the dead, and sacrifices of chastity.a epos, IStar the goddess of love already appears (491)
It is a remarkable circumstance that surrounded by a whole troop of attendants : uptabkir
9. Human i2tu lStar kizir2ti Sam@i L &drimdti: ‘there assembled
sacrifice, etc. hitherto no authentic evidence for the
burning of human sacrifices has been the goddess IStar. the servants, harlots, and concubines.’
met with in any of the cuneiform inscriptions. It In the period of religious decay the worship by such
would be unwise, however, to base much upon the hieroduli became naturalised in Jerusalem ( z K. 237).
argumentum e silentio here, for reticence with reference The subject of lustrations stands in close connection
to such a sad and repulsive practice is only what we with that of sacrifice in the Hebrew Torah, and has a
should expect. T h e passage, so often quoted in 4 R. lo. Lustrcltione. large place in the Babylonian ritual.
2 6 6 . where the priest is bidden to offer for the life of the The texts relating to it are verv
sick man a kid (urt-u)-head. neck, breast of the one difficult, especially because they arc often written ih
for head. neck, breast of the other-does not come into pure ideograms. At the foundation of these purifica-
account here. T h e text is a description of a magical tions lies the conception that an unclean substance can
operation such as may be compared with that given in be removed by a clean, and a clean be taken up by an
2 K. 434. T h e Babylonian sculptures, on the other unclean. That which is unclean has a contagious
hand, supply traces of human sacrifices that are almost character, that which is clean has a sympathetic power.
unmistakable (see Menant, P G 194J 9 7 ) . though it is So 4 R. 162 : mP Sundti ana Rarpati & - m a ana ribtti
not impossible that the representations in question are tubukma maruStu Sa Bmdki innaffaru rib& litbal
intended to figure, not human sacrifices, but ceremonies ru’tum nadttum Sz’ kfma mC littabik R i @ f a ina m’ti
connected with circumcision. I n the wider sense of the nadtti bullulu ana arkati Zitziru: ‘ this water ponr
term the Babylonian ban (see B A N ) has to be regarded thou into a pot, then pour out in the street; let the
as of the nature of human sacrifice. That the same street carry off the sickness which deprives of strength,
conception is not altogether absent from the Heb. and let the poison poured into it be washed away like
h2rem (against Di. Lw. 377) is proved by Is. 346, the water, let the spell which has united itself with the
where the destruction of Israel’s enemies at Bozrah is poison poured in be averted.’ T h e spell (from which
treated as a ’ 3 . 5 ni) Sennacherib ( 5 5 0 ) put to death the sickness proceeds) is transferred to the poison, the
poison is absorbed by the water, the water is carried off
the troops of h u b at the command of ASw his lord. by the street : thus the sufferer has a threefold guarantee
Shalmaneser (.$fa Obv. 17) burnt the young men and that he will be healed of his sickness.
maidens in his band of captives. The ban pronounced As ingredients were employed such things as from
by ASur-bgni-pal (6101) over his enemies extends also their external appearance or internal qualities were
to thelower animals (cp Judg. 2048). A sacrificial offer- fitted to be symbols of purity. Water is mentioned
ing of prisoners (cp I s.1533) is thus recorded by ASur- with special frequency. In lustrations libations of
biini-pal ( 4 7 0 ) : ‘the remainder of the people I put to water are offered to Sam&. Marduk and Ea the gcds
death beside the great steer, where my grandfather of pure exorcism are honoured with libations and
Sennacherib had been murdered, making lamentation sacrifices in the house of sprinkling (btt rinrki; 5 R.
for him.’ In 4 R.6340 IBtar figures as the bloodthirsty 5051). I n the temple was a laver ( a g d b u ) . In an
goddess who devours human flesh: irtanatti &mi oath formula (Maqlu. 34, 47) occurs this expression :
niibuti Sa amPlziti S2r Fa Zd akdli ntrpaddu b Zd kardsi: ana ildni Sa Samt mC anamdin Ktma andku ana kdFunu
u2alZukund.Z attunu idSi ullilainni: ‘ I offer water to
1 Cp King Lr. 5f: 76.
2 On humin sacrifice cp Lenormant, ,??rurErs accdimnes, the gods of heaven. As I perform your purification for
3 112; Sayce, TSBA 425 ; Menant, P G l 150. you, so do ye cleanse me.’ T h e waters of the Euphrates
4121 4122
RITUAL RITUAL
and the Tigris were regarded as having special efficacy right foot, prescribed in Lev. 1414 has its analogies
( N i m r . E$.4919 ; Zimmern, surpu, 4466, ib. 7 7 ) ; we in many magical texts (cp ASKT9152 : abna ella
have this interesting passage : ' By Marduks command ina @u&dnifa Bnifu ina ubSniSu :i&irti ina SumPli5u
be the bowl with thy guilt, thy ban, taken away like the &Run, 'lay the shining stone on the lashes[?] of his
unclean water from thy body and thy hands and eyes, on his little finger, on his left side'). An
swallowed up by the earth.' interesting parallel to the offering of purification pre-
Besides water frequent mention is made of honey (di'pu) scribed for the poor, which follows the magical operation
wine (hardnu), &ilk (iirbu), cream QimOfu). further brigh; prescribed'in Lev. 1421, occurs in K. 8380. There the
minerals such as salt (!&tu), alum (sikhafu),hkali (1 h u l u ) .
and, from the vegetable kingdom corn (ujuntu) the wbod 0; person to be purified is bidden take hold of the hands of
various trees, such as cedar (wzhuj,cypress (6ur&:u), palm (gi& the sacrificer who pours water upon the hand of the
: i m a m ) , calamus (&&nufau; cp x b ? a?$, rig-gi(onycha?) sufferer, lays incense upon the dish, and solemnly pre-
all sorts of incense (&u!rinnu, np?). pares the sacrificial meal. Then, further, we read:
As a clean place-aSm e l h , exactly corresponding Summa rubd jla tu k i l i@w ana makldte i&lu Summa
t o the iiz: nipp of Nu. 199-the wilderness is frequently muSkFKlnu Su libbt fu'i ikalu, 'if he is a rich man he
shall hand over a dove(?) to be burned, but if he is
named.l 4 R. 843: mamit ana $ri afri e l i ZiSe:i# a pauper he shall cause the heart of a sheep to be
' let the ban depart to the wilderness, the clean place ' burned. '
(cp 4 R. 14z), 4 R. 5651 : ana pdn namaSS2 fa ~ 2 r i
pdniki Sukni, ' to the beasts of the wilderness turn thy i. Points of resemblance.-(a) A large number of
face.' I t is on a similar conception of the wilderness as expressions relating to sacrifice are common to both
the clean place that the Israelite custom of sending the
goat for Azazel into the wilderness on the day of Atone- . .
ment appears to rest (but see A ZAZEL ). Of the other ?add@ (n?!), kapa& (797). ( b ) - i n bloody sacrifices,
goat also which had to be burnt, Josephus remarks the same species of animals are employed (ox, sheep,
(Ant. iii. 103) that before the burning it had to he goat). Animals of a year old are preferred, sacrifices
brought to a very clean place-(& KaOaphaTov xoplov). of a more advanced age are rare. Female animals are in
Purity-physical cleanliness-is postulated in every the one case used for purifications, in the other (Nu. 1527)
sacrificial act, as in every exercise of religion ( 4 R. 23 16: for sin offerings. T h e offering of defective animals was
k d f d eZltti ikM ma&&arka:' with pure hands he sacrifices in the one case allowed for purposes of augury, in the
before thee.' 4 R. 19 no. 2 : kdttka misi Mtika ubbib, other for free-will offerings (Lev. 2223). Generally speak-
'wash thy hand, purify thy hand.' Muplu 108% : itturn ing, both rituals required that the victim should be
i2ru m i d kdtd Sdrumma Sdru misd kdtd, ' the morning without blemish. As in the Babylonian ritual the
dawn is past, I have washed my hands ; the morning saftukku-Le. , the regular and obligatory sacrifices-lies
glow has shone, I have washed my hands'). All who at the fmndation of the worship, so also in P, and still
were sick or who associated with those who were unclean more in Ezekiel, is the t i m i d , the regular daily offering,
became themselves unclean. (4R.6264: Id eZla Zd made statutory and the centre of the whole divine
eZlita ul itamar, ' the unclean man, the unclean woman, service. (c) As for unbloody sacrifices, among the
shall he not look upon '). Babylonians systematic use was made of various
That contact with <he dcid defiled may be assumed a- matter materials of which the employment in Israel was only
of course: uf sexual defilement t h i 5 is expressly stated by
Herodotiis(1 198); c p q K. 2Bno. 5 : r i n n r S t i r L a k , i t ~ i L I , ~ d a n r k a exceptional, such as wine, water, oil. T h e incense
uJfamAir ardafu ;a k&f&:aId misd iffaplus: 'to a woman offering ( +ufr-innu)was unknown to early Israel. All
whose hand is not $re; he has joined hims,elf : at a maid-servant the more striking is the frequent and important place it
whose hand is not washed, he has looked.
takes in the ritual law of P which provides a special
Foods also were distinguished as clean and unclean. altar for the k<@reth. Jeremiah (620) has a polemic
In the prayer addressed to the sun-god we often meet against it as a modern and outlandish innovation. T h e
with such expressions as these : mimma lu'u i k u h iStu unknown author of Is. 653 names Babylon as the land
i p f d u uZappitu ukabbisu, if he perchance has eaten, in which sacrifices are offered in gardens, and incense
drunken, anointed with, touched, or trodden on, aught offered upon bricks (cp Chors. 172 ; Sarg. Ann. 434 ;
that was unclean.' I n the calendar given in 5 R. 4849 4 R. 4953). T h e incense offering of post-exilic Israel
occur food prohibitions. For the 9th of Iyyar fish is may perhaps have been borrowed from the Babylonian
forbidden, for the 30th of Ab swine flesh (fdrSa@), for ritual.
the 27th of T i k i swine flesh, beef (S2r aIpi), for the 10th
ii. Points of dz@wzce. -( a ) I n the vegetable offerings
of Marbesvan dates, for the 25th of Iyyar, 29th of
of the Hebrew TGrtih only those products figure which
Kisleu, and 6th of Tebet contact with women.
represent a right of private ownership acquired by
The Babylonian ritual of purification urgently needs
labour and trouble. Honey, cream, milk, fruit occur
systematic exhibition, especially on account of its close
frequently as Babylonian offerings, but never amongst
connection with O T views. Nowack ( H A 275) re-
marks with truth that the biblical ideas of clean and those of the OT. The wine libation is no longer an
unclean had their rise elsewhere than on the soil of independent offering in P (S ACRIFICE, § 35), Ezekiel
Yahwism (cp Smend, Rel. -gesch. 334). I n such a law prohibited it altogether-doubtless, however, only on
of purification as that which we find in Lev.14 un- account of abuses connected with it (I S. 114). (6) As
questionably many pre-Israelitic representations are regards bloody sacrifices, offerings of fish and game
were excluded from the Hebrew ritual. Both are
present. T h e cedar-wood mentioned in Lev. 144 is one
inherently the property of Yahwb and thus not appro-
of the cleansing media of the Babylonian ritual also
priate as sacrificial gifts. T h e fish offering, on the
(4 R. 1632 5 R. 5115); the bird which in Lev. 147 is
other hand, is frequently mentioned in Assyrian and
charged with carrying off the leprosy into space is often
late Babylonian inscriptions, and game offerings were in
met with in Babylonian litanies (4 R. 426 4 R. 592,
great,favour. I n Ti&.-pil. 7 4 8 we read : ' herds of
rev. 14 : ' I will rend asilnder my wickedness, let the
hinds, stags, chamois (?), wild goats, which I had taken
bird carry it away up to the sky'). The sevenfold
in hunting in large numbers, I brought together like
sprinkling of the person to be cleansed (Lev. 147) recalls
sheep, and the progeny that was born of them I offered
such passages as 4 R. 2632 : adt sibifu dumur amBli
a s my heart bade me, along with pure sacrificial lambs,
Suatu pufufma, ' seven times anoint the body of that
man.' The besmearing with blood on the tip of the to the god AHur.'
( c ) As for the fundamental idea underlying sacrifice,
right ear, on the right thumb, on the great toe of the
the Hebrew sacrifice in its older form gave a special
1 The desert is perhaps regarded as pure because it receives
development to the conception of a sacral communion
unpurified and dead bodies without harm. between God and the worshipper as represented in the
4123 4x24
RIVAL ROE
act of offering (cp Wellh. Heid. 114);the Babylonian The word occurs most frequently as the rendering of mi‘il(see
cultus, on the other hand, affords no trace of this. All MANTLE, 5 2 [6]) occasionally too of ada’keth Jon. 36 and
(for MT kder) i d 2 8 (see i6. 5)) and of tnahil&h Is. 3 iz RV
the more strongly is the idea of the purificatory and (see d. 7), u r d $ , Lk. 1522 20:s ReG.611 7g13j:’(see i6. 16)
propitiatory character of sacrifice which comes into the and XAapds, Mt. 27 28 (see i6. 20). It is applied to the mor;
foreground in P and Ezekiel conspicuous in the Baby- general terms 6&ed ( I K. 22 TO 30 11 2 Ch. 18 9 29 ; see DRESS
S I [I]) and &%jetip (Lk. 23 11, RV ‘apparel’), and is once used t;
lonian cultus. Singular to say, however, that shows not render’kuttbneth (Is. 22 ZI), on which see TUNIC. See DRESS,
the faintest trace of &?Em (S ACRIFICE , 5 27),&@th MANTLE, and Cp CLOTHING, GARMENT.
(S ACRIFICE , 28); we may assume that the sin and the ROBOAM (Mt. 1 7 ) , RV R EHOBOAM.
trespass offering of the Hebrew Torah, although all
that we know of their technique is wholly of post-exilic
ROCK. I . ?Y, szir. See N AMES OF GOD, 5 15,
and Zun. [Under ZUKthirty-five places are cited whey +r
date, were entirely of Israelite growth. J. J. seems to have become altogether a synonym for ‘God. In
twenty-one of these @3 (from a dread of materialism?) has Bdr,
RIVAL ( nyl), I S. 1 6 RV, AV ADVERSARY. in four &qBds, in four c$dAa(; d p ~ o s(Is. ]?IO), diraror (I S. 2 2),
K ~ W S (2 S. 22 32) &.vriA<pmwp (Ps. 69 27 [26])each occur once ;
RIVER. For the rivers and streams mentioned in and in Dt. 32 37 $ab. 1 1 2 @ shows a different text.]
the EV, see, generally, G EOGRAPHY , 5 5 ; P ALESTINE, 2. y ? ~ s, / h a ‘ . See S ELA . [In 2 S. 222 Ps. 1 8 3 [.I,
$5 9 , 13 ; EGYPT, 5 6 ; ASSYRIA,5 4 ; MOAB, 5 4 J ; 3 1 4 C3] 4210 [9], s/Zu‘ is a synomyn of :CY, and a divine
also ~ U P H R A T E S ,J ORDAN , N ILE , etc. title. Konig (StyZistik, 100)finds sLZu‘ once used of a
The regular word for river is I. nrihir (731, N. Sem., Ar. heathen god, but iyto (EV ‘ h i s rock’) in Is.319, if
nahr is probably a loan-word). See GEOGRAPHY, 9 5 and cp
ARAM-NAHARAIM. Other words occasionally so renderid are :- correct, is parallel to iqy (EV ‘his princes’). See
2 . ye“@ ( 1 ~ ;- cp CANAL GEOGRAPHY, 5 5 [ii.]) used regu-
CYit. Biri.]
larly of the NILE rq.v.1 or ’of its arms once of a mining-shaft
(Job 28 IO), and in Dan. 12 5-7 of the Ti& The last mentioned 3. l i y ~ , mi‘& (Judg.626 RV), cp F ORTRESS ; 4.
unrestricted use of the word appears again in later Hebrew. E%&?, QalZEmiS (Job289). cp FLINT ; 5. 12, k q h (Jer.
3 . nrfkal (5m, N. Seni.) corresponds to the Ar. wcidy or
torrent-valley ; see GEOGRAPHY 9 5 [iv.], and cp BROOK. 429 Job306) ; cp C EPHAS, SIMON P ETER.
Two terms appear to designate primarily canals or conduits:-
ROCKBADGER (I$@, Lev. 11 5 RVmg.), EV CONEV.
4. yii6nZ ($??*, dflow, run), Jer. 178t (irpds [BNAQ]) of
which ‘lidal (53[)]# in Dan. 8 zf: 6 t (see ULAI)Seems to be a ROD. Of the following words, the first three are
mere phonetic variation. Cp the form ya6aP in plu. Is. 30 25 also rendered ’ staff’ ; see Is. 3 0 3 2 (the staff of judg-
(EV streams’), 444 (EV watercourses’). ment); Ps. 2 3 4 ( o m , 1) a j y w ~ see
, STAFF, I ) ; Gen. 3210
5. pb& Ps. 464[5165 !IO]. CP Iz&-@tk Job2017 (Jacob’s staff); for a very special sense of np)n and
EV river, in Judg. 5 1 5 x , R q watercourses’ (so Moore ; cp,
however, Bu., Now.). U ~ W see , SCEPTRE.
For the sake of completeness mention may here be made of :- I. af9t3,mageh (z/nU>, to stretch out): of the staff or wand of
6. ‘Z#hZ&(q’”), see BROOK. the traveller (Gen. 38 1825 etc.) shepherd (Ex. 4 z etc.), wonder-
7. ‘PSed(iwN), Nu.2115, AV ‘stream’; on the meaning see worker (Ex. 7 9 12, etc.); warhor (I s.142743j task-master
ASHDOTH-PISGAH. (Is. 93 [41, etc.), ruler (Jer. 48 17 etc.); an impledent of punish-
8. n8zZm (&,, lit. ‘flowing’), Ps. 78 16 Cant. 415, ‘streams. ment (Is. 30 31), used also in besting out black cummin (&e‘sa.h
Is. 2827). The ‘rods’ in Nu. 17 17 # [172#1 are apparent$
RIVER OF EGYPT (Dl>yp$n>). See EGYPT, ‘shafts,’ i.c., arrows or spears. Maffeh is also rendered ‘staff‘
(the staff of judgment), Is. 30 32. Cp the AI. na61lt, Doughty,
BROOK OF. AY. Des. 1147, 379.
RIVER OF THE WILDERNESS (n?iJG !7?2). 2. U?@, 5&f cp Ass. Saiatu, ‘to beat’ (whence &6tu, ‘staff,
See ARABAH,B ROOK OF THE. as something to heat with but also ‘massacre ‘ Frd. Del .)
(a) As an implement of ;unisbment (Prov.10;3 1324); the
bastinado as autborised by law is referred to in Dt. 25 1-3, and
RIZIA (73l),I Ch. 7 3 9 RV, AV R EZIA. (probably) Dt. 22 18. See L AW AND J USTICE , t 12. In 6 the
verbs are pamryoirv, lrai6rdcrv; pa&%<e~v is used cnly of
RIZPAH (n?yl; 5 71,‘pavement’; pecr$a[BAL), threshing in agriculture. (6) As used for heating cummin
daughter of A IAH [p.~.], Saul’s concubine, z S. 3 7 (kammGn, Is. 28 27). (c) Of the shepherd’s staff, or club-stick
(Ar. nabst), Ps. 23 4 Lev. 27 32 Ezek. 20 37. (rc) Of the ruler’s
21 8 3 , (pf@+& [A in n. 81). According to the existing staff; see SCEPTRE. (e) Of a weapon, in time of stress, 2 S.
tradition Ishbosheth ‘ was angry with Abner for taking 23 21. Both mntfeh and $bet are used also metaphorically in
possesssion of his father’s concubine, and Abner the sense of ‘trit;; ’ (see TRIBE).
indignantly repelled the accusation (on 2 S. 3 8 see 3. $SF, m&ke‘Z, literally a shoot or wand (Jer. 1 I I Gen. SO 37,
N ABAL ). Winckler, however, plausibly holds ( G Z 2 196) etc.) ; of traveller’s staff, Gen. 32 I I ’ of the shepherd’s I S.
that the original tradition interpreted this fact differently, 174“ 43 Zech. 11 7 IO 1 4 ; once perhaGs of a crutch, see S ~ A F F ,
and that in reality Abner had dethroned ‘ Ishbosheth,’ 3. Used in rhalidomancy, Hos. 4 12 (see DIVINATION, 9 2 [I]).
and signified his assumption of Saul’s crown by taking 4. %h, &&r, used only metaphorically (hut as representing
possession of Saul’s wife (cp 1211 1622). The pathetic its literal sense of ‘shoot,’ ‘scion’ or ‘twig’), Is. 11 I Prov. 143t.
5. i)d,’380r, I Cor. 421 Heb. 9 4 Rev. 227 11 I 12 5 1915, all,
story of Rizpah’s conduct when her two sons A RMONI except I‘ Cor. (Z.C.) and Rev.,ll I , influenced by OT.
(see SAUL, 5 6) and M EPHIBOSHETH [q.v.] and the The beating with rods Cpa@i+i.v) in Acts1622 2 Cor.
five sons of Michal or rather MERAB[q.v.] had been !125 is the Roman punishment inflicted by the lictors (EV
serjeants,’ i)a,%oirXor : Acts 163538).
put to death, to remove the blood-guiltiness of the land,
is also, according to Winckler ( G I 2241), unhistorical ; BODANIM (PVJ?h), I Ch.17 AV’W., R V ; AV
hesuspects mythological affinities,and compares themyth DODANIM.
of Niobe (Preller, Griech MyzYz. 2269). According to ROE. The rendering of: I. SPbi, ’3y (Ar. ?abu, Aram.
z S 2 1 1 r j ? , it was on hearing of the act of Rizpah, fa6yZ Icp T A E I T H A ] Ass. sabifii‘ 60p& [BNALI) in E V of
that David sent for the bones of Saul and Jonathan, I Ch. 1 2 8 , and 2 S. 2 (‘wild roe,”lit. ‘roe that ia in the field
that they might be buried together in the sepulchre of cp RVmg.), and, with RVmn. ‘gazelle,’ in EV of Cant. 2 7 (&
Kish at Zela. or rather Laish (=Shalishah). See +wdpfurv) g and 17 (@ d i p r w v r ) 3 5 (@3 6uvdpeorv) 8 14 ; AV only
in Ecclus. 2720 (RV ‘gazelle’); also the rendering of the fem.
Z ELAH . form @6zjyah, ?I?:, in Cant. 4 5 7 3 [4] RV (RVmg. ‘gazelle,’
On the Rizpah-story see further RSP) 4195, and on the
mode of execution (upin) see H ANGING, z d ; on the source of not in AV). When mentioned as an article of food s&% is
rendered Roebuck (Dt. 12 15 22 14 5 15 22 I K. 4 23 [ 5 31; AV ;
(BLOOKS), 99 4 8 ; We. C H 263 ; Bu.
the narrative. see S A M ~ E RV ‘gazelle ‘).
Ri.Sa. 257 f: T. K. C. 2. ya*ZLih,?Y:, Prov. 5 19,RV, DOE ; cp GOAT,5 io
ROAST. See C OOKING, 5 6 ; SACRIFICE, 5 6. 3. *&hcr, l g y , Cant. 4 5 7 3 [4Jr AV ‘young roe,’ RV ‘ fawn,’
see HART.
ROBE, the rendering suggests an outer garment of 4. yujrtnir, l?Dn: (lit. ‘red’), Dt. 145 I K.423 [531; AV
some richness, more elaborate and elegant than an FALLOW-DEER (,3od&zAos [AJ. in Dt.1; B in Dt., and BAL in
ordinary mantle. Ki. om. ?).
4125 4126
ROGELIM ROMANS (EPISTLE)
Like the G AZELLE and H ART , the roe is chiefly Ignatius. As regards the latter, the reader is referred
alluded to for its swiftness, and partly on account of to what has been said under O LD-C HRISTIAN L ITERA-
its grace and beauty is a favourite image of female TURE (§ 285). The ' Epistle of Paul to the Romans'
charms.' On the species in-general see G OAT, 5 2 , and has come down to us from antiquity not as a separate
note that the name yuhmzir (no. 4 above) is still used work but as one of the most distinguished members of a
by the Arabs for the true Cevvus capreoZus (cp Dr. group-the ' epistles of Paul ' (ha~urohaLIIatAou)-in
Deut., ad Zoc. and see A NTELOPE). T h e C u p r e o h which its title in the shortest form, followed by Ti. W H
cupm, with which the ya4mzir has also been identified, among others (after KABC, etc. ), is ' to Romans ' (7rpbs
is a small form found distributed over Europe and 'Pwpaious).
W. Asia, and still occurs in Palestine ; specimens of it From the beginning (first hy Marcion, about 140 A . D .)
were seen by Tristram on Lebanon, and by Conder the work, as- an integral part of the authoritative
(Tent- W o r k , 91 [1887]) on Mt. Carmel. T h e fallow- ' Apostle ' (b 1 A a r 6 u ~ o h ~~b~ ,d ~ o u r o -
1. History of h~~bv)--i.e., Paul (nachos)- in other
deer (cp AV), Cervus damn, is a native of N. Africa criticism ; tra- words as a canonical writing, was
and of the countries surrounding the Mediterranean, ditional view. tacitly recognised as the work of the
whence it has been introduced into many civilised
countries. It occurs also in N. Palestine, but is said apostle Paul. This continued without a break till 1792.
t o be scarce. A nearly allied species, C. mesopotumicus, Justin took no notice of Paul ; Irenaeus and Tertullian
is found in parts of W . Persia. A.. E. s.-s. A. c. -the latter with a scornful ' haereticorum apostolus '
on his lips-laboured to raise the 'apostle' in the
ROGELIM (D95$1; p ~ r f h [ h l P~Al ]~, P A K ~ B E I N estimation of the faithful (cp PAUL, 48); but no one
[L]) ; the home of ' Barzillai the Gileadite ' ( 2 S. 17 27 ever thought of doubting the genuineness of the letters
1931). T h e existence of such a place is questionable. attributed to the apostle-or of defending it. During
Probably the passages relative to Barzillai are based on the whole of that period the question did not so much
a n earlier passage respecting M EPHIBOSHETH [g. v. § 21 a s exist.
which had already become corrupt, and o h 1 (Rogelim) There is indeed a very old discussion-perhaps it had
is a corruption of 0.53 n*3 Beth-gallim, L e . , Beth-gilgal alreadv arisen even in the second century-as to the
(see G ALLIM ; S AUL , § 4). a. Theory of existence of the epistle in two forms, a
The corruption arose from a scribe's Zapsus oculi. In 2 S. eompositeness. longer and a shorter, even after omis-
1727f: the:true text probably ran (see @BAL and cp YARN)
sion of the two last chauters (15. 16).
3+ ' ~ l p ni r q o ' ~ l ? p o * & - n y VJ+? +p. But Origen taxes Marcion with this last omission ;buiorigen's
o*3qpn was miswritten oqpio ; the consequence of which was older contemporary Tertullian says nothing of that,
that one scribe (followed by MT and @B*) wrote o.$>ia, and though he several times reprimands the heretic for having
another (followed by @L) wrote n q i n , instead of ohrngp.
tampered with the text of chaps. 1-14. The probability
The + q K a v of @BAL represents o33[?]1pn(cp Jqdg:? 17 $). is that Tertullian had no acquaintance with chaps. 155
2 S. 19 I w a s harmonised, as to the name of Barnllai s home,
with z 5.17 27 in each of the texts. T. K. C. At any rate, he made no citation from them in his
polemic against Marcion (udv. Jfarc. 5 13-74). although
ROHGAH (??gh Kt. ?I$?> Kr.), a name in a
in its course he leaves none of the previous chapters
genealogy of ASHER( g . ~ §. 4 ii. ). In I Ch. 734 [Ahi] ('
(1.14) unreferred to and speaks of one expression-
and Rohghah" becomes [axi]oyia [B], [ q i l o y p a ora ' tribunal Christi ' (14Io)-as written ' in clausula '
C.41, [ H E I ~ ]K ~ paroyf
I [L.]; but rougu; Pesh. om. [epistulae] ; cp van Manen, PuuZus, 21o1-1r8.
passage) ; cp A HI, 2. In recent times the tradition of the text as regards
ROIMUS ( ~ O ~ I M O Y[B]), I Esd. 5 8 = E z r a 2 2 , chaps. 15-16 has frequently come under discussion.
REHUM,I. T h e conclusion is not only that the chapters in question
ROLL. I. h ~ pmZp'2hih;
, Xapriov, Xciprqr, Keq5ahis), were unknown to Marcion and probably also to other
Jer. 36 2, etc. See WRITING. ancient witnesses, including Irenaeus and Cyprian, but
z. P h , gilhiyan; for hi: '3 @ has ~ d p o vK a W O i p y l A o v
also that there were in circulation at an early date MSS.
in which the doxology Rom. 1 6 25-27 either occurred
[BNQ]. r6pov a'prou K. p. c.41: RV 'tablet.' A tablet of wood or alone immediately after 1423 or was entirely wanting
stone IS probAly meant. Is. 8 It. For the g i l y 6 m of Is. 3 23
cp M IRROR , end. (cp Ti.; Sanday-Headlam, Comm. (1895). 895; S.
3. T!D, sphar, Ezra61, RV 'archives.' See WRITING and Davidson, 1894, 1120-123).
cp H ISTORICAL L ITERATURE. To these facts were added at a later date, considerations
based on the contents of chaps). 15-16 tending to show that they
ROLLER (hl? ; MaharMa [RAQI' ; cp Is. 16]), hardly fitted in with chaps. 1-14. Semler. (Diss. de dwplici
afipendice e#. Pauli ad Rom. 1767; Parajhrasis e). ad
Ezek. 8021,one of the few references to surgical practice Romanos, 1769), soon afterwards supported by Eichhorn (Einl.
in the EV(see M EDICINE ). Nittzilfrom dentwine (used in das Nr), held chap. 1 5 5 to he hy Paul hut not to have
in Ezek. 164 of swaddling, cp derivative in Job 359) is originally belonged to the Epistle to the Romans. Baur (Tu&
properly a bandage (cp Toy's rendering in SBOT) Zfschr. 1836 Paulus, 1845, cp Paulus?), 1 [1866]393-409),
followe$ in (he main among others by Schwegler (Nuchap.
rather than a poultice (as @). Zeitalteh), Zeller(ACL'), S. Davidson(Znfrod. (a), 1894,1123-Iy),
and controverted by Kling (Sf.Kr. 1837) De Wette and others,
ROMAMTI-EZER (7Ju )!??#l, § 23, according to maintained the piece to he spurious: Since Baur, many scholan
the Chronicler a son of Heman : I Ch. 254 31 PWMEI have endeavoured to steer a middle course by seeking-in very
yioi wh, P O M E A X ~ I [B, superscr. we B".b], PWM-
diverGent ways, it is true-for the close of the letter su posed
lost, in chaps. 15, 16. So among others, Lucht (U&r die
EM81 EZfp. PWMEO Ml€Z€p [AI, pAMAel€Z€p [L]. beiden t'efzfen Kapp. des R8mer6riefss,r871), Volkmar (R6;mer-
romemthiezer [Vg.]), but see HEMAN. bnkf 1875), Scholten (Th. T, 1876), Bruckner (Rcihnfoolgc,
1390j, Baljon (Cesch. v. d. Boekcn des NVs. 1901, p. 95-6). In
ROMANS (EPISTLE) these various attempts an important part was always played by
the conjecture, first put forth by Schulz (Sf.Kr., r829), that in
Histo of criticism (58 1-3). Conclusion (5 19). Rom.lFr-ao what we really have is an epistle of Paul to the
What'Romans seems to be Author (I%20-22). Ephesians.
(I 4). His date (B 2 3 ) . Jn this direction-that of holding more Pauline
Contents (I 5) Value of Work (%24).
Not a letter (sf 6.8). Defenders of authenticitv (P epistles than one to have been incorporated with each
Structure ($8 9-13). other or anialgamated together to form the canonical
. ~la-18).
Late date (PS . , ." , epistle to the Romans-the way had already been led
Of Epistles to the Romans Old-Christian Literature (leaving 15, 16 out of account) by Heumann in 1765.
is acquainted with two-that of Paul and that of He argued, according to Meyer (Ko~2m.P) [1859], etc.), for
the 'strange hypothesis' that a new Epistle to the Romans
1 If these animals were sacred to the.goddess of love (see begins at chap. 12 whilst chap. 16 contains two postscripts (uu.
GAZELLE), another plausible origin of the reference might be 1-24 and 25-27) td the first. Eichhorn (Einl.?), 1827) guessed
sought for. that Paul in reading over the epistle after it had been written
4127 4128
ROMANS (EPISTLE) ROMANS (EPISTLE)
by an amanuensis made various additions with his own hand. he had repeated his doubts in more compendious form
C. H, Weisse (Philos. Dogm. 1855)held Kom. 9-11 to be a later in his Chridus u. die Cmsaren (1877,pp. 371-380).
insertion. He found moreover a number of minor insertions in
the Epistle and finally concluded that chaps. 9-10f161.16, 206, Soon afterwards A.D. Loman ( ' Quaestiones paulinze'
probably hAd belonged originally to an Epistle of Paul to the in Th. T,1882) developed the reasons which seemed to
Ephesians (cp his BeiLr. zur k i i t i k derpaul. BY. 1867, edited him to render necessary a revision of the criticism of the
by Sulze). Laurent (Neufcd. Studies, 1866) supposed Paul epistles of Paul which was then current. Without going
to have written with his own hand to his Epistle to the
Romans a number of notes which subsequently by accident into details as regarded Romans, he declared all the
found their way into the text. Renan (St. Paul) was of epistles to be the productions of a later time. Rud.
opinion that Paul had published his Epistle to the Romans in Steck ( D e r (:daterbrief nach seiner Echtheit untersucht,
several forms--e.<., chaps. 1-11+15 ; chaps. 1-14+16 (part); ont
of these forms the epistle known to us ultimately grew. Straat- nebst kritischen Bemerkungen IU denpaulinischen Haupt-
man (Th. 7' 1868, 38-57), controverted by Rovers (ib. 310-325). brigen, 1888) came to the same conclusion and took
came to the'conclusion that chaps. 12-14 do not fit in with what occasion to point out some peculiarities connected with
recedes ; that these cha ten along with chap. 16 belong to an
%
Epistle of Paul to the phesians; ' and that the close of the the Epistle to the Romans. The same investigation
was more fully carried out, and substantially with the
Epistle to the Romans, properly so called, is found in chap. 15.
Spitta (Zur Gesch. u. Litt. des Urchristentums, 116-30 189 ) same result, by W. C. van Manen (Paulus 11. De bricf
contended, and,at a later date (31-193, T ~ I reaffirmed,
) ;houg\ atin de Romeinen, 1891; cp Handleidingvoordt. Oudchr.
with some modifications of minor importance, that our Epistle
to the Romans is the result of a fittingtogether of two epistles lettrrkunde, 1900, ch. 3, 55 IO-19), and Prof. U'. €3.
written by Paul at separate times one before and one after his Smith of Tulane University, Louisiana, has recently
visit to Rome, and addressed to tde Christians there. The first begun independently to follow the same path. The
and longer, a well rounded whole, consisted of 11-1136, 158-33 Outlwk (New York) of Nov. 1900 contained a pre-
1621.27; the second, partly worked into the first, has no:
reached us in its entirety ; we recognise with certainty only the liminary article by him, signed Clericus ' ( a misprint for
portions: 121-157 and 161.20. ' Criticus '), anh in the Journal of Biblical Literature,
Pierson-Naber (Verisimilia, 1886), controverted by Kuenen 1901,a series of articles bearing the author's own name
(TA.T, 1886, cp van Manen, By6ladvan de Hernomiz&, 1887,
No. 4, and Bi6L mod. Theol. i887), point to a number ofjoinings was begun-the first entitled ' Address and Destinatiou
and sutures, traces of manipulation and compilation, in the of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans,' and the second
traditional text of the Epistle to the Romans, with a view to ' Unto Romans : 15 and 16.'
proving its k e r n conditio. Michelsen (2%.T 1886-7) sought
to distinguish in that text five or six editions of Paul's Epistle, T h e newer criticism has made itself heard and goes
in the course of which various far-reaching modifications may be forward on its path in spite of much opposition and
supposed to have hecn made. Sulze (Prot. Kirchensfg. 1888 strife, applauded by some, rejected by many. For its
PO. 4?) pressed still further for the recognition of additions and
insertmns. Vijlter repeated his ' Votum, etc.'(recorded in Th. T, character and aims see P AUL, 34-36, and cp
1889) in a separate publication (DieKom&sitia dw p a d i m 37-48. Its desire is to read ' t h e Epistle of Paul to
Haujtbricfi, 1,1890), andsought toproveagain that our canonical the Romans ' as well as the rest of the canonical books
Epistle to the Romans is the fruit of repeated redaction and without any fear of the ban that lies upon aught that
expansion of a genuine epistle of the apostle.
may perchance prove to be contrary to tradition, whether
Thus, there has been no lack of effort on the part of ecclesiastical or scientific ; uninfluenced by any ante-
scholars to satisfy themselves and each other of the cedent presumption as to the correctness of the current
composite character of the traditional text. Equally views as to contents, origin, or meaning of the text as it
decided, however, at least with most of them, is the has come down to us, however highly esteemed be the
opinion that nevertheless the text is, for the most part, quarter-Tuhingen or any other-from which they have
and in the main, from the hand of Paul. This con- reached us ; free, too, from the dominion of any con-
viction was for a long time tacitly assumed, rather than viction, received by faith merely, and held to be superior
explicitly expressed. So even by Baur, Weisse, and to any test of examination, as to the epistle being in-
Straatman, whilst it was brought to the foreground, with duhitahly the work of Paul and of Paul alone. It seeks
friendly yet polemical emphasis, as against the representa- to read the epistle in the pure light of history, exactly
tives of a advanced criticism,' by Spitta. As regards as it appears after repeated examination has been made
the others mentioned above, most hesitation was to be on every side, as it at last presents itself to the student
noticed in Pierson-Naber, Michelsen, and Volter ; but who really wishes to take knowledge of the contents
even these, one and all, continued to speak of an original with as little prejudice as possible.
letter, written by Paul to the Romans. Coming before us, as it does, as a component part of
Not a few writers continued simply to maintain the the group known as ' the Epistles of Paul,' handed down
prima facie character of the canonical epistle or, as from ancient times, Romans appears
occasion offered, to defend it in their notes and dis- 4. mat, indeed to be neither more nor less
cussions, commentaries and introductions. seems to be. than an epistle of the apostle, written
For details, f i o conh-a, and some guidance through the probably at Corinth and addressed t o the Christians at
extensive literature, the student may consult Holtzmann, EinLPI Rome, whom he hopes to visit ere long after having made
1892 242-6 ' Sanday-Headlam Comm. 1895, pp. 85-98 ; Zahn( a journey to Jerusalem. Both superscription and sub-
EA;.(2) 19do 1268.209 ; for a Lore complete though not alway;
accuratb accdunt of the doubts regarding the unity of the work, scription, as well as tradition. indicate this, even if we
Clemen, Die Ekheitlichkrit derpaulin. Srife, 1894, cp Th. T, leave out of account the words 'in Rome' (ev 'Pdpy) and
1895, 640df ' to those in Rome ' ( T O ~ S<v 'Pdpg) which are wanting in
The first to break in all simplicity with the axiom of some MSS in 1 7 15. W e have only, in connection with
the genuineness of OUT canonical epistle to the Romans, the superscription and subscription, to look at the manner
3. Pauline though without saying so in so many in which the epistle begins and ends (11-15 1514-16 27),
authorship words, was E. Evanson. H e appended a t the way in which the writer throughout addresses his
questioned. to The Dissonance of the f o u r generally readers as brethren ( 1 1 3 7 1 4 8 1 2 101 1125 121 1 5 1 4 5
received Evangelists, 1792, some con- 30 1617), stirs them up, admonishes them and discusses
siderations against the justice of the received view which with them, as persons with whom he stands on a friendly
regarded Paul as author of the epistle-considerations footing, and has opened a correspondence on all sorts
based upon the contents themselves and 'a comparison of subjects. The appearance of Tertius as amanuensis
between them and Acts (pp. 256-26 I ) . Controverted (1622) need cause no surprise, it being assumed that
by Priestley and others, Evanson's arguments soon fell perhaps Paul himself may not have been very ready with
into oblivion. the pen.
Sixty years afterwards Bruno Bauer (K~i'h'kder If we turn for a little from a consideration of the
B a d i n . Bride, 1852, 347.76) took up the work of literary form to occupy ourselves more with the con-
Evanson, without, so far as appears, being acquainted 6. Contents. tents, the first thing that strikes us is the
with the writings of that scholar. He was not successful, conspicuously methodical way in which
however, in gaining a hearing-not at least until after the writer has set forth his material. After an address
4129 4130
ROMANS (EPISTLE) ROMANS (EPISTLE)
and benediction (11-7), an introduction (18-15), and a we are in a position to judge, ever give us cause, because
statement of what he regards as the essential matter as by its length or its elaborate method it resembles a
regards the preaching of the gospel-a thing not to be treatise arranged in orderly sections, to regard it as a
ashamed of but to be everywhere preached as a power book, as our canonical epistle to the Romans does, with
of God for the salvation of every believer whether Jew its great subdivisions (already taken account of under 8 5).
or Greek (116f: )-come two great doctrinal sections W e may, in truth, safely dispense with further com-
followed by an ethical section. T h e first doctrinal parison between our epistle and any real letters from
section, 118-839, is devoted to the elucidation of the truth ., Style of ancient times, so impossible is it to regard
that the gospel is the means for the salvation of Jews it as an actual epistle, to whatever date,
and Greeks, because in it is revealed the righteousness address. locality, or author we may assign it.
of God from faith to faith ; the other, 9-11, to an earnest How could any one at the very beginning of a letter, in
disciission of what seems to be a complete rejection of which, too, the first desire he writes to express is that
the Jews by God ; the third, the ethical section (121- of writing solemnly, earnestly, directly, allow himself
1513), to a setting forth of the conduct that befits the to expatiate, as this writer does, in such a parenthesis?
Christian both towards God and towards man in general, H e speaks as a didactic expounder who, for the most
and towards the weak and their claims in particular. part, directly and as concisely as possible, deals with a
In substance the doctrine is as follows. Sin has number of disputed points. with regard to which the
alienated all men, Jews and Gentiles alike, from God, reader may he supposed to be in doubt or uncertainty
so that neither our natural knowledge of God nor the because in point of fact they have gained acceptance
law is able to help us (118-320). A new way of salvation within certain circles. These expositions relate to
is opened up, ' G o d s righteousness has been manifested ' nothing more or less than such points as the relation
(GrKaroulvq OeoO ae+avipwrar) for all men without dis- of the Pauline Gospel to the O T ( v . z), the descent of
tinction, by faith in relation to Jesus Christ (321-31). It the Son of God from the house of David (v. 3), the
is accordingly of no importance to be descended from evidence of the Messiahship of Jesus derived from his
Abraham according to the flesh ; Abraham in the higher resurrection (v. 4), the origin and the legitimacy of the
sense is the father of those who believe (4). Justified by Pauline preaching ( v . 5 ) . At the same time the readers
faith, we have peace with God and the best hopes for (who have not yet been named and are first addressed in
the future (5). Let no one, however, suppose that the v. 7) are assured that they belong to the Gentiles (MY?),
doctrine of grace, the persuasion that we are under with reference to whom Paul has received his apostleship,
grace, not under the law, will conduce to sin or bring although, according to 110-13,he has never as yet met
the law into contempt. Such conclusions can and them and consequently has not been the means of their
must be peremptorily set aside (6-7). The emancipated conversion. All this within a single parenthesis. I n
life of the Christian, free from the law of sin and death, such wise no letter was ever begun.
is a glorious one (8). Israel, the ancient people of the T h e writer addresses himself to ' all ' the members of a
promises with its great privileges, appears indeed to be wide circle-let us say in Rome ; even if the words in
rejected, yet will finally be gathered in (9-11). T h e life Rome ' (PY 'Pdpg) and ' those who are in Rome ' (70%
of Christians, in relation to God and man, must in every Pv 'Phpp, 1 7 IS), according to some MS authorities, do
respect give evidence of complete renewal and absolute not belong to the original text, their meaning is assured
consecration (121-1513). Finally, a closing word as to by the superscription ' to Romans' (ap'pbs 'Pupalous ; cp
the apostle's vocation which he hopes to fulfil in Rome 1522-29) and by the unvarying tradition as to the destina-
also ; a commendation of Phmbe, greetings, exhorta- tion of the 'epistle.' The Paul whom we meet here
tions, benedictions, and an ascription of praise to God addresses his discourse to a wide public, and utters in lofty
(1514-1627). tones such words as these : ' 0, man, whoever thou be
If, at a first inspection, the work presents itself to us who judgest, etc.' (2, B v e p w r e n2s 6 K ~ ~ Y WK.T.X.,
Y 21),
a s an epistle written by Paul to the Christians at Rome, ' 0,man, who judgest, etc.' (5B v e p w ~ e6 Kpivwv K . T . X.,
6. D i ~ ~ ~ l t:ione scloser examination it becomes diffi- 23), ' If thou bearest the name of a Jew, etc.' (el 66 03
not letter; cult to adhere to such a view. Diffi- 'Iou6uibs Paovopoi3;n K . T . X . , 217), ' N a y hut, 0 man,
~

culties arise on every side. To begin art thou that repliest against G o d ? ' (5 BvOpwxe,
opening
-,--- and with- as regards the form that is who pevoGuye ud 71s ET 6 dvraaoKprvbpEvos r@Re@, ~zo),' But
CilUSW.
assumed. W-e are acquainted with n o I speak to you that are Gentiles' (bpiv 6.? hiyo rois
letters of antiquity with any such exordium as this : ..
$Ovsurv, 11 13); ' I say . to every man that is among
' Paul, bond-slave of Jesus Christ, called an apostle, you, etc.' (Xeyw ... xavrt rQ 8vrr Pv bpiv K . T . X . ,
separated unto the gospel of God ... to all those 123). 'Who art thou that judgest the servant of another?'
who are in Rome .. . grace to you and peace from (uh ris E t 6 K ~ ~ V WdhX6rprov V oiKhrqv, 144), But thou,
God our father and the Lord Jesus Christ' (IIaGXos why dost thou judge thy brother?' (03 6.? ri K P I Y E ~ S rbv
600hOS 'I7&706X p l n O D , K X q T b S d T 6 U T O X O S d@WplU&OS &SeX+lv uou, 14 IO), ' For if because of meat thy brother
cis ehaay/Phrov Be00 . .. &urv 70% oBuiv t'v 'P6pp is grieved, etc.' ( e l ydp 6rd (3pGpa 6 d&X+6s uou Xuaeirat
... xdpis bph Kal clp+q d u b OeoO xarpbs +p&v Kal
K U ~ ~ O 'IquoD
U XpcuroD) ; nor with any conclusion so
K.T.X., 1415), etc. Often the argument proceeds unin-
terruptedly for a long time without any indication of the
high-sounding as the doxology of 1625-27,or the prayer existence of a definite circle of persons to whom it is
for the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ which is heard in addressed. Yet, on the other hand also, the abstract
1620 (or 1624). I n every other case the epistles of argumentation gives place to direct address, the word
antiquity invariably begin plainly and simply. of admonition or exhortation spoken to the brethren
Thus, for example in the collection of Oxyrhynchus papyri
(1 181) we have Eip& Tmvv&+psr rai @ h v r &+v@v ... and
(d6cA+oI), whether named or unnamed-the mention of
at the close ef rparrers; or (1 183) XarpLr Arovvuror &L ~ u p h whom, however, when it occurs, is a purely oratorical
&?rA+G xaipsrv and, at the close, ;ppGuOai u e d x o p a r . form and no nztural expression of the existence of any
Greetings are indeed conveyed both from and to special relation between the writer and his assumed
various persons ; but never are so many introduced as readers. Of the passages coming within the scope of
in Rom. 163-16,where in fact at the end a l l the churches this remark (some of them, already noticed in § 4), none
salute. A letter-writer may, at the outset, seek to bring presents any peciiliarity in this respect. On the con-
himself into closer relationship with his reader or to make trary, every one of them produces uniformly the same
himself known more exactly; but in the many ex- impression ; in this manner no real letter is ever written.
amples of real letters that have come down to us from T h e last chapter has nothing of the character of a
ancient times we nowhere find anything even approach- postscript to a letter already completed, although the
ing the amplitude of Rom. 12-6. Nor yet does any real letter appears to end with 1530-33. Strange, in the
letter, whether intended for few or for many, so far as sense of being not natural but artificial, is the appearance
4131 4132
ROMANS (EPISTLE) ROMANS (EPISTLE)
in 1622 of Tertius ( ‘ I , Tertius, who write the epistle’ : of a synoptical gospel, with regard to which no one
6 ypd$as T+V C T C C T T O ~ ~ V )the
. secretary of Paul, who, doubts that it is the result of a characteristic process of
however, seems himself to have had a hand in the redaction and renianienient, curtailment, correction, and
letter, since we find him saying in 1515, ‘ I wrote to supplementation by the help of older pieces drawn from
you’ ( < p a p a &&). Strange especially is Tertius’s other sources. It is such unity as we find in reading
greeting of the readers in his own name, in the midst Acts, although we do not hesitate for a single moment
of the greetings which Paul seems to be transmitting to realise that Lk. has made an often very palpable use
through him, w. ZT 23. of written sources. There is unity of language and style,
The contents of the epistle, largely consisting of of thonght, of feeling, of opinion ; but at the same time
argument and discussions on doctrinal theses, differ as there are, not seldom, great diversities in all these
widely as possible from what one is wont to expect in a respects. The result, obviously, of the unmistakable
letter-so widely that many have long laboured at the circumstance that the writer of the canonical epistle has
task of making a suitable paraphrase of the ‘ text-book ’ made continual and manifold use of words, forms of
while retaining their belief in its epistolary character. expression, arguments, del-ived from sources known to
(See, for example, the specimen in Holtzmann, EinL!a), him, whether retained in his memory or lying before
237 ; cp S. Davidson, Zntr.!3J,1113-116.) him in written form.
I n vain do we make the attempt in some degree to Proof of the justice of this view is supplied by the
picture to ourselves what the relation was between the various attempts made by earlier and later exegetes to
*, supposed author and his readers. Acts
supplies no light. There we read that
expound- the epistle as a completely
lo. 6nd unity. founded whole-attempts in which it *
to
when Paul is approaching Rome the IS found necessary at every turn to re-
brethren go to meet him, not becake they gad previously sort to the assumption of all soris of conceivable and
had a letter from him, but because they have heard inconceivable figures and forms of speech, and thus
various things regarding his recent fortunes (2814 f.). conceal the existence of joints and sutures, hiatuses,
As for the Jews of the metropolis, they have heard and unintelligible transitions. More particularly is this
nothing either good or bad concerning him ( v . 21). seen in the scientific line taken by Heumann, Semler,
Tradition, apart from the N T , has equally little to say Eichhorn, Weisse, Straatman, Volter, Michelsen, Spitta,
about the epistle, whether as to its reception or as to and so many others (some of these names are enumerated
what impression it may have made. The document in 5 2 ) , who have argued, and continue to argue, for the
itself says something, but only what adds to the con- view that more than one epistle of Paul lies concealed
fusion. The truth of the matter seems unattainable. in the apparently homogeneous canonical epistle, or for
Scholars lose themselves in most contradictory con- the view that there have been interpolations, more or
jectures as to the occasion and purpose of the writing. less numerous, on an unusually large scale. In the last
See, amongst others Meyer-Weiss Komm.!gJ 189,pp. 23-33 ; resort, on an (as far as possiblej unprejudiced reading
.
Holtzmann EinLPl ;36-241 Lip& Cornm.bJ 1892, pp. 75- of the text which has come down to us-a reading no
76; Sanda;-Headlak, Corn$., 1895,dhaps 38-44; van Manen,
Paulus, 2 20-23. longer under the dominion of a foregone conclusion, to
Who the supposed readers of the epistle were can be maintained at all hazards, that here we have to do
only be gathered from its contents. But these are so with the original work of the apostle Paul, sent by him
different in many aspects that it is possible to say with to the church at Rome-we shall find that what lies
equal justice that the church in Rome was Jewish- before us is simply a writing from Christian antiquity
Christian, Gentile-Christian, or a mixture of the two. presenting itself as such a work, which we must try to
Cp the various conclusions in Meyer-Weiss, 19-22. Holtz- interpret as best we can.
mann 232-236; Lipsius, 70-73. Steck Gal. 59 363 Vblter, T h e traces of additions and redactions in the various
Th. ?, 1889, pp. 270-272, and K&j. 82 ; van Linen, PauZus, sections and subsections of the epistle are innumerable.
2 23-25). It would be superfluous, even if space
It may be added here that the work is throughout ll. sisns of allowed, to go through all the details on
compositeness.
addressed to ‘ brethren ’ of all kinds, and sometimes it this head. A few examples may suffice.
seems also to have been intended for Jews and Gentiles Compared with the first part ( I 18-8;9), the second
who stood in no connection whatever with Christianity. ( g - l l ) , although now an integral portion of the work,
Did any one ever give to a particular letter an aim so betrays tokens of an originally different source. There
general, without realising that his letter had ceased to be is no inherent connection between them, although this
a letter at all in the natural meaning of the word. can, if desired, be sought in the desire to set forth a
and had become what we are accustomed to call an wholly new doctrina! subject in a wholly new manner.
open letter, an occasional writing, a book ? Everything In the second we no longer hear of the doctrine of
leads to the one conclusion ; the epistolary form is not justification by faith ; the treatment of the subject
real, it is merely assumed; we have here to do, not enunciated ’ in 116f . is no longer continued. What
with an actual letter of Paul to the Romans, but rather takes its place is something quite different and wholly
with a treatise, a book, that with the outward resem- unconnected with i t ; a discussion, namely, of the
blance of a letter is nevertheless something quite doctrinal question, ’ W h y is it that the Gentiles are
different. Cp EPISTOLARY L ITERATURE, 5 1-3; O LD admitted and Israel excluded from salvation ? ’ This
C HRISTIAN L ITERATURE, $ 1 8 3 discussion is directed not, like the contents of the first
The same conclusion results from a closer examination part, ostensibly to Christian Jews, but to Gentiles.
of the whole as it lies before us, whenever we direct our There is nothing in the first part that anywhere suggests
9. unity.
of attention to the connection of its several any such affection for Israel as is everywhere apparent
parts. The relative unity of the book throughout the second part, and especially in 91-3 101
there is no reason for doubting. It is not, 11 I 2j-36 ; nothing that comes into comparison with
however, unity of the kind we are accustomed to expect the solemn declaration of 91 in which the writer bears
in a book written after more or less careful preparation, witness to his great sorrow and unceasing pain of heart
in accordance with a more or less carefully considered concerning Israel. This exordium points to a quite
and logically developed plan ; not unity such as is the different situation, in which ‘ P a u l ’ requires to he
outcome of a free elaboration of the materials after these cleared of the reproach of not concerning himself about
have been more or less diligently collected, and fully God‘s ancient people. Hence the wish expressed by
mastered by the writer. Least of all, a unity such as him that he might become anathema from Christ (dnb
we look for in a letter, whether we think of it as written TOO XpruroO) for his brethren’s sake, his kinsmen accord-
at one sitting or as written bit by bit and at intervals. ing to the flesh (auyyev~is KUT& adpra, 93). Hence his
I t is rather a unity of such a sort as reminds us of that zeal here and in 11I to declare himself an Israelite, of
4133 4’34
ROMANS (EPISTLE) ROMANS (EPISTLE)
the seed of Abraham, the tribe of Benjamin. Hence justly remarks, a much more superficial use is made of
also the summing-up of the ancient privilege of Israel, the proof from scripture, ' and the whole representation
' whose is the adoption and the glory and the covenants ' and language is somewhat less delicate.'
( 9 4 J ) ,in comparison with which the simple statement The third part of the epistle (121-1513) seems to be
that they were entrusted with the oracles of God (32) closely connected with that which precedes. Observe
sinks into insignificance. In the first part a quite 12. Third the 'then ' (08v : 1 2 I ) , and notice how the
different tone is assumed towards the Jew ('Iousaios, writer harks back to 9-11 in his declaration
217), with whom the speaker appears to have nothing
part. (15 8) that Christ has been made a minister
in common. There we find Jew and Greek placed of the circumcision with reference to the promise of
exactly on a n equality (116 29.K 39) ; the idea of the God, and to 116J or 118-839 in the same declaration
jews that as such they could have any advantage over supplemented with the statement (159) that Christ
the heathen is in set terms controverted (211-321), and appeared also that the Gentiles might glorify God for
it is declared that descent from Abraham, acEording to his mercy. But the connection when more closely
the flesh, is of no value (4). Here, on the other hand examined will be found to be only mechanical. There
( 9 - l l ) , we have earnest discussion of the question how is no real inward connection. No one expects a
it is possible to reconcile the actual position of Israel hortatory passage such as this after 1133-36. Nor yet,
in comparison with the Gentile world with the divine where some would fain place it, after ch. 8 or ch. 6.
purpose and the promise made to the fathers. Here, The exhortations and instructions given in 121-1513,
too, a high-pitched acknowledgment of the privileges however we put the different parts together, stand in no
of Israel, the one good olive-tree, the stem upon which relation to the preceding argument; the same holds
the wild olive branches-the believing Gentiles-are good of the exordium 12I/ Though usual, it is not
grafted ; Israel in the end is certain to be wholly saved, correct to say that Paul first develops his doctrinal
being, as touching the election. beloved for the fathers' system 118-1136, and then his ethical in 121-1513 ; or
sake (Karb r+v 2 ~ A 0 y i l v ciyarrr)roL 6ib r o d s rar.!pas, 94f. even to say in the modified form of the statement that
31 102 117 x 7 f . 2628). In the first part, a sharp repudia- he follows up the doctrinal with an ethical section.
tion of the law in respect of its powerlessness to work Exhortations are not wanting in the first part, nor
anything that is good (3zof: 27 415 614 7 5 5 , etc.) ; in doctrines in the last. The truth is that in 118-1136
the second a holding up of the giving of the law (uopo- the doctrinal element is prominent, just as the horta-
B~uia)as a precious gift (94). In the first part the tory is in 121-1513. In other words, the two pieces
earnest claim to justification by faith (51),to being under axe of different character. They betray difference of
grace (614),to a walk in newness of spirit (76) ; in the origin. 121-1513 is, originally, not a completion of
second the assurance that ' if thou shalt confess with thy 1-11, thought out and committed to writing by the
mouth Jesus as Lord, and shalt believe in thy heart same person, but rather-at least substantially-an
that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved ' independent composition, perhaps, it may be, as some
(109). have conjectured, brought hither from another context.
Observe, again, the difference in respect of language. It has more points of agreement with certain portions of
T h e words 'just,' 'justify,' ' be justified ' ( G l K a i o s , the Epistles to the Corinthians than with Rom. 1-11.
&KUlO%, S t K a i o i 7 u O a i ) , nowhere occur in chaps. 9-11, nor Compare, in general, the manner of writing and the
yet the expression ' both Jews and Greeks ' ('IOU& T E K U ~ nature of the subjects treated.
E X A . ) . except in 1012 where apparently it is not original, In detail, corn are such ex ressions as 'beseech
(maparahcj . . . E&)& .. . by'
1 2 I witi I Cor. 1 IO z Cor. 10 I, whereas
or a t least has no meaning after the words ' for there is 'beseech' ( m p a m A e w ) , dowever Pauline, is found neither in
no distinction' (08 ydp Purtv GrauroX7j). T h e words Rom. 1-11 nor in Gal. ; the 'mercies orrsippoQ of God, 12 I,
' Israelite ' and ' Israel ' are not met with in 1-8, whilst with the 'mercies' ( o l n n p p o 9 of the kither in 2 Cor. 13, hut
in 9-11 the first occurs thrice and the second eleven nowhere named in Rom. 1-11: 'this age' (b aiiuv 0 0 ~ 0 s )122,
with I Cor. 1 2 0 2 6 8 3 18 zCor. 44, but not found in Rom. 1-11;
times. On the other hand, we have ' J e w ' nine times the representation that thy Christian can still !x renewed by the
in 1-3, hut only twice in 9-11, and in both cases its renewing of the mind (avaraivomr TOG vooc: 122) with the
occurrence seems probably due to the redactor. T h e assurance that though the outer man perish, 'that which is
within us is renewed day by da (b Zuw G p i v [8v8pwnosl
' adoption ' (uioBeula). which, according to 8 1 5 (cp Gal. L v a r a w o a r a r $pi q K a i Gpipp, z 801.4 16) whereas Rom. 1-11
4 5 Eph. 1 5 ) is a privilege of all Christians, whether Jews knows nothing o f this 'reuewal,' and could hardly have intro-
or Greeks, recurs in 94 in connection with a supposed duced it alongside of its doctrine that the Christian is dead so
predestination of Israel as the son of God ; the word is far as sin is concerned (6 2) so that he now stands in t h e service
of newness of spirit (7 6). Compare, :pa;'", the ,assurance that
the same but it sounds quite differently. In 1-8 Christ God gives to each a measure of faith ( c r a u r w perpov ncurews :
is seven times called the son of God, and in 9-11never. 12 3) with ' only, as the Lord has supplied to each ' (fl p$ ~ K & U T ~
On the other hand, he is probably called God in 95 but As p ~ p c p r ~I Cor. ~ : 7 14) 'according to the measure of the
province (RVmg. or h i 4 which God apportioned to us as a
nowhere in 1-8. Whilst in 1-8 we find no other form measure' ( K a r h A p+v To6 ravduor, ob ~ p i p r u c vt p i v i, t ~ c
of the verb ' say' (tp&u) than ' shall we say' (.!po+ev), pirpov: z Cor. 10 13), and the declaration that not every one
in 9 1 9 5 11 19 we also have thou wilt say' (6pp.Z~)and receives faith through the spirit(1Cor. 129), as also that there
' shall the thing say?' (Ppe?). If the occurrence of the is a still more excellent way than that implied in the spiritual
gifts of which faith is one -namely love ( I Cor. 12 31),-wherea?
expression ' what then shall we say ' (d03v t p o f i p v ) in not only are the words "apportion' (pepi<av) and ' mesure
9'430, as well as in 4 1 61 7 7 831, points to oneness (pirpov) unknown to Rom. 1-11, but so also is 'love' (by&q) in
of language, it has nevertheless to be noted that in 1-8 the sense of love to God and one's neighbour and (equally so)
a faith (riunr) which is not regarded as the biginning of a new
it never, as in 930, is followed by a question, but always life, in coniparison with which love is not required simply
by a categorical answer. A speaker who says that Israel because that and everything else that is needed is already
' following after a law of righteousness did not arrive a t possessed where faith is : the distinction between various
spiritual gifts(126-8)compared with I Cor. 124-11 and 28-30; the
[that] law' ( 6 1 6 K O v v 6 p O V 61KUlOUbvqS d F v6pov 0 f i K whole attitude towards self-exaltation (12 3-8) compared. with
&#JBauw, 931) understands by ' law ' (vhpos) something I Cor.46f: and 1212-30; the exhortations to the practice of
quite different, and at the same time is following a quite love, real, and purity (129-21 and 138-14)compared with I Cor.
d i f k e n t use of language, from one who. declares that 1 3 ; 141-2039 1558 5 1 1 Fg-ir 16-20 where amongst other
things the occurrence of 'cleave' ( K o h k d a ' ) :n Rom. 12 g and
the Jew sins ' under law ' (.?vvhpws or Qv v 6 p y ) ; shall be I Cor.'s 16x,though nowhere else to he found in the Pauline
judged ' by law ' (6cb vJpou, 212); doeth not 'the things epistles, is to he noticed; the occurrence also of 'taking
of the law' ( T & 700 vSpou, 214). is not justified ' by works thought for things honourable in the sight of all men' (npovood-
pevor ~ d ;v&mov
i a & w o v bv8p&nov : Rom. 12 17) as compared
of law' (;E # p y o v ubpou), comes to knowledge of sin with the only parallel expression 'for we take thought for
' through law ' (6ib vbpou, 3 2 0 ) and lives ' under law ' things honourable, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in
( I r d vbpov, 614). Only the latter is thinking of the the sight of men ' (npovooi!psv y i p raAd 06 pdvav &&nrov K U ~ ~ O U
Mosaic law, about which the former would not speak M X d K& Iv&n,ov bVep&rov : 2 Cor. 8 21 : cp Prov. S4); b+erArrv
13 s used several times also in I and 2 Cor. hut never in Rom.
so depreciatingly. I n chaps. 9-11, as Steck (Gal. 362) 1.11 : the special exhortations to subjection to authority and to
4135 4136
ROMANS (EPISTLE) ROMANS (EPISTLE)
due discharge of one’s various obligations (13 1-7) indicative of a could have been alleged about it a t so early a date as
peaceful environment and hardly in keeping with the persecu- 59 A’D‘’ the year i n which it is usually to have
tions suggested by the closing verses of chap. 8, hut on the
other hand quite in accord with the special admonitions and been written bY l’ad.
exhortations of I Cor. 1 1 0 8 5 6 1-11 112-15,etc. ; what is said T h e faith of the Roman Church is supposed to be
in chap. 14 regarding the use of certain meats, the observance of known ‘ thoughout the whole world ; and paul is
sacred days and the respect for the weak with regard to which
no word is tonnd in 1-11, hut which redinds u9 throughout of 15. Reflection with desire to its acquaint-
1,Cor. 9-10, not only by reason of the similarity of such erpres- ance in order that so he may be re-
sions as ‘eat’ (&~Oisru) ‘food’ @ p i p a ) , ‘cause to stumble’
(uaav6ar\i<crv), ‘ a stumdling-block to the brother’ (rp6urroppa
Of later we’ fresh& (18 T h e fiaith of both rests
T+ &&A@+), ‘not to eat flesh ’ 0.q $ay& .pia), etc., hut also On the Same foundation’ The Christians Of Rome are
ROMANS (EPISTLE) ROMANS (EPISTLE)
possibility-which, in fact, no one denies-of a develop- unclean food, deeming that they are free to eat and
ment in Paul‘s mind during the years that elapsed drink as they choose, and that all days are alike ; but
between his conversion and the writing of his epistles. these, just because of the freedom they rejoice in, give
The Paulinism of the epistles in question is, on their offence to many brethren and are the cause of their
own showing, in its main features a t least (with which moral declension (145f. 13 15 20-23). These divergent
we are here concerned) as old as the Christian life of practices have already continued for so long that the
P a u l ; but such a Paulinism is even for thoughtful writer, so far as the first two (wine and flesh, clean and
believers in the supernatural inconceivable as having unclean) are concerned, is in perplexity between them
come into existence immediately after Paul had become himself, and has no other plan than to raise himself
a Christian. Let the student read and ponder the sketch above them all in order to urge a general point of
of Paulinism given by van Manen in Puulus, 2126.140, view-a genuinely ‘ catholic ’ one-of ‘ give and take,’
cp 211-217; and in P AUL , 5 40. in which the principle of freedom is recommended and
T h e kinship of Paulinism (especially in the form in its application urged in the fine maxims : let no one give
which it occurs in the Epistle to the Romans) with offence, let each one be fully persuaded in his own
gnosis, wGich has been recognised and mind, all that is not of faith is sin (145 1323).
17. gnosis. remarked
with both by older and by younger T h e church is exposed to persecution ; it suffers with
critics-amongst others bv Basilides.
I
Christ. It has need of comfort. What is said in this
Marcion, Valentinus, Irenzeus, Tertullian, Holsten, connection cannot be explained from any circumstances
Hilgenfeld, Scholten, Heinrici, Pfleiderer, Weizsacker, at Rome known to us before Nero and the time of the
Harnack (cp van Manen, PuuZzis, 2154-r66)-leads also great fire in 64. It points rather to later days when
to the same conclusion : that Paul cannot have written Christians were continually exposed to bloody persecu-
this epistle. As to the precise date at which (Christian) tions. See 53-5 817-39 1212 14.
gnosis first made its appearance there may be some One decisive proof that in our epistle we are listening
measure of uncertainty : whether in the last years of to the voice of one who lived after the death of Paul in
Trajan (ob. 117 A.D.), as is commonly supposed, or 64 A. D. is to be found in the manner in which the question
perhaps some decades earlier ; in no event can the date of the rejection of Israel is handled in chaps. 9-11. That
be carried back very far, and certainly not so far back question could not thus occupy the foreground or bulk
a s to within a few years of thedeath of Jesus. With so largely in the minds of Christian writers and readers
regard to this it is not legitimate to argue, with Baljon as long a s Jerusalem was still standing, and there was
(Gesch. 77),that in the Pauline gnosis ‘ no doctrine of a nothing to support the vague expectation of its
demiurge, no theory of aeons is found.’ It is years approaching overthrow which some entertained. T h e
since Harnack (DGC2)1196-7) rightly showed that the allusions to the great events of the year 70,the over-
essence of the matter is not to be looked for in such throw of the Jewish commonwealth, and the expectations
details as these. which connected themselves with this event are mani-
I n addition to the assumed acquaintance (already re- fest. Any one who will read what is said, particularly
marked on) of the readers of the epistle with the Pauline in 1111-22, about the downfall of the Jews ( 7 b aupd-
18. other gospel, thereare other peculiarities that arwfia air&), about the branches that have been broken
of a ~ indicate
~ . the church addressed as one of off (CEeKhduBquav~ X d 8 0 tand
) the ‘cutting off (dlrosopla)
long standing. It is acquainted with which has come upon those who are fallen ( M + o h
various types of doctrine (6 17); It can look back upon T ~ Y T C C S ) can
, be under no misapprehension on this
its conversion as an event that had taken place a con- point.
siderable time ago (1311). It has need of being stirred If we now sum up the points that have been touched
up to a renewal of its mind (122) and of many other on in 68-- 6-18,we need have no hesitation in deciding
exhortations (12-14). It has in its midst high-minded
persons whcee thoughts exalt themselves above the
measure of faith given them (123). It does not seem
’” that the arguments are convincing-
our canonical Epistle to the Romans is
not what it seems to be. not a letter written by the
superfluous to remind them that each belongs to the apostle and sent to a definite church ; it is a tractate,
other as members of one body endowed with differing a book, designed to be read aloud at Christian meetings,
gifts. There are prophets, ministers, teachers, ex- a piece to be read in Church (kirchliches Vorlesungs-
horters, givers, rulers, and those who show mercy, and stuck), or homily, as Spitta (Zur Gesck. 3 5 9 ) has
it appears to be necessary that each should be reminded phrased it. It is a book written in the form of a letter,
of what he ought to do or how he ought to behave. not written after the kind of preparation with which we
T h e prophet must keep within the limits of the faith write our hooks, but compiled rather in a very peculiar
that has been received, and be careful to speak according manner by use of existing written materials wherein the
to the proportion of that faith ( K W & T ~ ) Ydvahoylav 74s same subjects were treated in a similar or at least not
a i u ~ e w s126):
, the minister, the teacher, and the exhorter very divergent way. W e can best form some conception
must each busy himself exclusively with the work of the method followed here by studying the text of one
entrusted to him ; the giver must discharge his task of the synoptical gospels with an eye to the method in
with simplicity, the ruler his with diligence; he that which it was presumably composed ; or by tracing in
shows mercy is to do so with cheerfulness (124-8). The detail the manner in which such authors as the writer of
mutual relations must be considered anew and carefully the present epistle make use of the OT. They quote
regulated, both in general (129-21 138-10). and, in from its words alternately verbatim and freely, often,
particular, with respect to the special ‘ necessities of too, without any reference to the O T context, so that
the saints,’ the duty of hospitality, the attitude to be we can trace the question only by comparison of the
maintained towards persecutors (12 12.8 ), the public text we possess which has been wholly or partly
authority, and the fulfilment of the duties of citizenship followed (cp van Manen, Puulus, 2 217-9).
(131-7). A vigorous exhortation to vigilance and an The study of the ‘ epistle ’ from the point of view of its
earnest warning against revellings and drunkenness, probable composition, enables us to distinguish what
chambering and wantonness, strife and envy, are not treatises or portions of treatises were probably made use
superfluous (1311-14). There are weak ones in the of before the text came into existence in its present form.
faith, who avoid the use of wine and flesh (141f. 21): In this way the work as a whole makes us acquainted
others who hold one day holy above others, and as with underlying views then prevalent, and accepted or
regards their food consider themselves bound by obsolete controverted by our author-on the universality of sin
precepts regarding clean and unclean ( 1 4 5 5 14f. 20). and its fatal consequences (118-32 0 ) ; on righteousness
Others again who regard all these things with lofty by faith (321-31): on the connection between this and
disdain, .making no distinction between clean and Abraham as father of the faithful ( 4 ) ; the fruits of
4139 4140
ROMANS (EPISTLE) ROMANS (EPISTLE)
justification (5j ; three objections against Paulinism (6 1-14 continually doing the thing he would not, and he longs
615-7677-25); the glories of the new life in Christ (8); for emancipation from the body ( 7 7-25). H e embraces
the rejection of the Jews (9-11) ; what is the duty of the doctrine of a redemption of man from a power
Christians towards God and man generally, and towards hostile to God on the ground of the love of the father
the weak and the principles held by them in particular (324 5 1 8332), and with this he associates the thought
(121-1513j. Such views, however greatly they may of an atoning sacrifice on behalf of the sinner offered to
vary in purpose and scope, all belong to one main God by Christ ' in his blood ' ( 3 25). Paul is t u him the
direction, one school of thought, the Pauline. W e called apostle of the Gentiles (1I 5 13f. 1 5 16 18) ; but
give them this name because we gain our best and also warmly attached to the Jews and ready to do
most comprehensive acquaintance with the school from everything for them (9 1-3 101 11 I ) ; in possession of
the 'epistles of Paul,' just as we speak of the Johan- the ' first fruits of the spirit,' always working ' in the
nine School and the Johannine tendency, although we power of Gods spirit,' but also in the manner of the
know nothing about the connection between the school original apostles ' in the power of signs and wonders '
or tendency on the one side, and the well-known (1519). He recognises Jesus as God's son, who has
apostolic name connected with it on the other. T o appeared 'in the likeness of sinful flesh ' ( 83 32) ; but he
suppose that the school originated from the historical also says that he is of Israel according to the flesh ( 9 5 ) ,
Paul, as was formerly maintained by Steck, is possible ; and that he was first exalted to the dignity of divine
but the supposition finds no support in any historical sonship by his resurrection (13f. 1512). He speaks
facts with which we are acquainted (cp PauZus, 2 222-227). with the same facility of *Jesus,' 'Jesus Christ,' and
What is certain, at any rate, is that the canonical ' our Lord Jesus Christ ' as he speaks of ' Christ ' and
epistle is not by Paul. A writing that is so called, but 'Christ Jesus.' For him all distinction in the use of
20. The author. on closer examination is seen to be no these various designations has practically disappeared.
epistle but rather a compilation, in Not seldom do we find him affirming and denying on
which, moreover, are embedded pieces that plainly the same page. H e knows how to give and take, when
show their origin in a later time, cannot possibly be to evade arguments, and when to meet them. Already
attributed to the 'apostle of the Gentiles.' In this we perceive in him something of the ' catholic' spirit
connection, however, it is inappropriate to speak of which rises above the strife of parties ; which serves the
deception or forgery or pious fraud. There is not the truth and promotes the unity of believers, by siding
slightest reason for supposing that our author had the now with the right wing, now with the left, by gliding
faintest intention of misleading his readers, whether over thorny points, and boldly thrusting difficultiesaside.
contemporaries or belonging to remote posterity. H e As for origin, he was probably a Greek. He thinks
simply did what so many others did in his d a y ; he in Greek, speaks Greek, and seems to have used no
wrote something in the form (freely chosen) of a tractate, 22. Hie origin. other books than those which he could
a book, or an epistle, under the name of some one have consulted in Greek (cp P a u h s ,
whom he esteemed or whose name he could most 2186-190). His home we can place equally well in the
conveniently and best associate with his work, without E. or in the W. In the E., and particularly in
any wrong intention or bad faith, because he belonged Antioch or elsewhere in Syria, because Paulinism
or wished to be thought to belong, to the party or probably hzd its origin there. The catholic strain, on
school which was wont to rally under his master's the other hand, within the limits of the Pauline move-
standard. His own name remained unknown ; but his ment, seems rather to have proceeded from Rome.
nom d e p h m e was preserved and passed from mouth to The possibility is not excluded that the main portions
mouth wherever his work was received and read. of the letter, or if you will, of a letter, to the Romans,
What reason was there for inquiring and searching were written in the E., and that the last touches were
after his real name if the work itself was read, quoted, put to it in Rome or elsewhere in the W. ; in other
copied, and circulated with general approval ? T h e words, that it was there that the epistle took the final
work might bear evidence of the artist so far as con- form in which we now know it. There is a consider-
cerned person, surroundings, sufferings. In this case, able number of writings which passed over from the
according to the epistle, he was a Christian, one of the hands of the Gnostics into those of ' catholic '-minded
Pauline School, a polished and educated man with a Christians, and in the transition were here and there
heart full of zeal for the relizious needs of humanitv : a
Y
revised and corrected, brought into agreement, some-
21. Hie method. Paulinist, however, of the right wing. what more than appeared in their original form, with
He raises himself above the different the prevailing type of what was held to be orthodox
shades of opinion which he knows so well by letting them (cp Lipsius, Apokv. A?.-gesch. 1883-1887; Usener,
find alternate expression, by letting the voice now of the R e l . , p c h . Unters. 1, 1889; van Manen, Paulus,
one and now of the other be heard. H e gives utterance 2227-230).
to words so sharply explicit as these : by the works of T h e author has not given us the date of his work,
the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight ' (320); 'now and we can guess it only approximately. Broadly
are we delivered from the law wherein we were held' 23. Date. speaking, we may say, not earlier than the
(7 6 ) ; but also to other words, so friendly in their tone end of the first nor later than the middle
as regards the very same law : ' n o t the hearers . .. of the second century. Not before the end of the
but the doers of the law shall be justified ' ( 2 13) ; ' the first century, because after the death of Paul (about
law is holy,' ' spiritual ' (7 12 14). He asseverates that 64 A . D . ) time enough must he allowed to admit of
there is no distinction between Jew and Greek (322); epistles being written in his name as that of a highly
that there is with God no acceptance of persons ( 2 XI); placed and authoritative exponent of Christianity, -the
and that the privileges of the Jew are many (31f.); representative, not to say the ' father,' of Paulinism, a
that Israel is in a very special way the people of God forward-reaching spiritual movement, a deeply penetrat-
(94f: 11I ) . He says that to be a son of Abraham after ing and largely framed reform of that oldest Christianity
the flesh signifies nothing ( 4 I$), and that to be of the which embodied the faith and expectations of the first
seed of Abraham is a specially great privilege (111). disciples of Jesus after the crucifixion. Paulinism in
He recognises at one time that the wrath of God is now this sense certainly did not come into existence until
manifest upon the sins of men (118), and at another after the downfall of the Jewish state in 70 A . D . , and
that this is yet to come (25-8). H e speaks of it as a -if we consider its kinship with gnosticism, and various
matter of experience that the Christian has broken with other features which it shows-surely not before the end
sin for good and has become a wholly new creature of thz first, or the beginning of the second, century.
(51-76 and S), and also lays down a quite different O n the other side, we may venture to say, not later
doctrine to the effect that he is still ' sold under sin,' than the middle of the second century. Clement of
4141 4x42
ROMANS (EPISTLE) ROMANS (EPISTLE)
Alexandria, Tertullian, Irenzus, use the book towards the added to the argument when a countless host of others
end of that century, and we may be sure did not hold since Baur arc never weary of repeating that ' even the
it for a recent composition. So also Theophilus ad Tiibingen school' have raised no doubts as to the
AutoZycum, 3 14,who about 180 A.D. cited Rom. 13 7 3 genuineness. T h e observation is correct, it is true.
as 'divine word' (Oeios X6yos). Basilides (125), and Only they forget to a d d : nor yet have they offered
hfarcion. who made his appearance a: Rome in 138, proofs that it is genuine.
knew the epistle as an authoritative work of ' the apostle.' Meyer-Weiss, S. Davidson, and others remain equally
Aristides (125-126), James (130), I Peter (130-140) in sparing of their arguments even after the criticism of a
like manner show acquaintance with the epistle. Various later date has made its voice heard. They put it aside
circumstances combined justify the supposition that it with a single word. Weiss, with a reference to a
was written probably about 120 A.D., whilst some ' Parody,' by C. Hesedamm, Der Romerbl-ief beurtheilf
portions of it in their original form may be regarded as u. geviertheilf, 1891. Davidson, with the observation
somewhat earlier (cp Pnzdus, 2 296-303 3 312-315). that the genuineness, apart from the conclusive testi-
If, in conclusion, we are met by the question, ' What mony of witnesses, is fully . guaranteed
- by internal
is the value of the writing when one can no longer evidence.
24. Value. regard it as an epistle of Paul to the ' The internal character of the epistle and its historical allusions
Romans?' it must never be forgotten coincide with the external evidence in proving it a n authentic
production of the apostle. It bears the marks of his vigorous
that the incisiveness of its dialectic, the arresting mind ; the language and style being remarkably characteristic.
character of certain of its passages, the singular power He omits. however. to tell us how he knows that
~~ ~

especially of some of its briefer utterances and out- anything is a ' production,' not to say an 'authentic
pourings of the heart, the edifying nature of much of production of the apostle' ; nor yet how he has obtained
the contents, remain as they were hfore. The religious his knowledge of the mind of Paul : nor yet why it is
and ethical value, greater at all times than the ;esthetic, impossible for a pseudonymous author to have any
is not diminished. The historical value, on the other characteristic language and style.
hand, is considerably enhanced. True, we no longer Harnack (ACL ii. 1 [1897]p. vii) considers himself
find in it, what we were formerly supposed to find.. absolved from going into the investigation until the
the interesting (though in large measure not well representatives of the newer criticism ' shall have rigor-
understood) writing of the apostle, written, in the days of ously carried out the task incumbent on them of working
his activity among the Gentiles, to a church which was out everything pertaining to the subject afresh.'
personally unknown to him. But what have we in its Julicher ( E i n l . , 1894, p. 17. 1901(~),
p. 19)once and
place ? A book of great significance for our knowledge again resorted to a severe attack on ' hypercriticism ' and
of the ancient Christianity that almost immediately ' pseudocriticism,' and subsequently proceeded, in deal-
succeeded the apostolic (the Christianity of the disciples ing with the Epistle to the Romans, as if nobody had
of Jesus in the years that followed his death). There is ever a t any time argued against its genuineness.
no work from Christian antiquity that contributes more Sanday and Headlam (Comm., 1895, pp. 85-98)
largely to our knowledge of Paulinism (whether in its discuss exhaustively the integrity of the epistle, especi-
first form-+ form in which it has not reached us in ally as regards chaps.15-16, but say little about the
any deliberate writing-or in its subsequent develop- history of the question of genuineness. They cursorily
ment) in its strength as a n inspiring directory for dismiss some of the objections without showing that
conduct, and in the richness and depth of its religious they have really grasped their proper significance.
thought and experience. Counter-arguments are practically not heard. So also
No serious efforts to defend the genuineness of the in other commentaries whose authors had heard any-
epistle have as yet ever been attempted. Those offered thing about the newer criticism referred to. Holsten
aB.
casually and in passing, as it were, ( ' Krit. Briefe iib. die neueste paulin. Hypothese' in
rely (as for example in Meyer-Weiss. Prot. Kirchenzfg., 1889), Pfleiderer (PuuZinismus(2),
of Komm.(g).1899,
- - ??-%I, and i n s . David- 1890),Holtzmann ( E i n l . 9 ) ,1892),Lipsius (HCI2),1892,
son, I n t ~ o d . ( ~1894.
), 117-119,150-2)on the so-called pp. 83 J ) ,and others, made some general observations in
external evidence. That is to say, its defenders rely on favour of thegenuineness that had been called in question.
what is excellent proof of the existence of the epistle at But these discussions were little more than insignificant
the time when it was cited, or what clearly presupposes ' affairs of outposts ' : no real battle was delivered nor
an acquaintance with it, but is of no significance what- even any serious attack prepared.
ever when the question is whether the work was in Then came Zahn ( E i n l p ) ,1900,13) with his censure
reality written by the individual who from the first was on his comrades in arms against the Tubingen school for
named as its author. This the Tiibingen school have their error in having defended indeed the genuineness of
long perceived ; Baur also did not rely on such argu- the epistles 'rejected' by Baur, but not that of the
ments. Instead of doing so he thus expressed himself ' principal epistles,' ' although Baur and his disciples
(Puuluur l(S, 1866, 276) : had never so much as even attempted any proof for the
'Against these four epistles (Rom. I and 2 Cor., Gal.) not only positive part of their results.' Forthwith he addressed
has even the slightest suspicion df spuriousness never been himself to the long postponed task. H e gave some half-
raised but in fact they bear on their face the mark of Pauline dozen general observations (pp. 112-116) not differing in
originhity so uncontestably that it is impossible to imagine by
what right any critical doubt could ever possibly assert itself substance from those which had already been made : re-
regarding them.' ferred to the various particular investigations to be made
The utterance, it will be observed, wholly ignores in a later part of the work, including the detailed treat-
Evanson, 1792,and of course also Bruno Bauer, who did ment of the Epistle to the Romans (pp. 251-310) where
not publish his criticism till 1851 ; but it also ignores 31 full pages are devoted to the subject of the integrity
the view taken by so many, including F. C. von Baur and not a single word to the question of genuineness.
himself, who have vied with one another in the dis- Baljon (Gesch., 1901)perceived that something more
integration of the epistle, as also the possibility that than this was necessary to put the newer criticism to
yet others at a later date might perceive what Baur silence, if it was wrong. But what he wrote with this
himself had not observed ; nor yet does it take account end in view was neither (as might have been expected)
of the unsatisfactoriness of any assertion (however a confutation of the objections urged, nor yet an argu-
plausible it may sound) as to the ' originality ' of Paul, ment for the genuineness at least as solid and good as
whom after all we know only by means of the picture (in intention at all events) that made on behalf of Philip-
that has been constructed with the aid of those very pians, but simply a couple of pages (pp. 97-100)
epistles with regard to which we wish to inquire whether devoted to the history of the newer criticism and a few
!hey really were written by him. Nothing therefore is observations upon the objections urged by van Manen.
4143 4'44

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen