SODOM, VINE OF
become attached,l was appropriately transferred to the
altered legend. and identified with Lot’s wife.2
It may be hoped that to many students it will appear
no slight boon to be relieved from the supposition that
~~
ll. Religious the peoples with whom the early
Israelites had intercourse were so much
suggestions. beneath them in morality as the
traditional text represents. Misunderstood -mythology
is the true source of the terrible narratives in Gen.
19r-11, Judg. 19 15-30. At the sanie time no criticism
can deprive us of the beneficially stern morality which
is infused into a most unhistorical narrative. Apart
from the plot of the story there are several points of
considerable interest for the history of Israelite religion.
Thus ( I ) in 1 9 12-16it is presupposed that the righteous-
ousness of the good man delivers not only himself but his
whole house; very different was the conviction of
Ezekiel ( 1 4 1 4 8 ) . ( 2 ) It is at eventide that thevisits of
the 5lBhim are made, both to Abraham and to Lot. As
the light of day wanes, man is more open to religious
impressions ; the Deity, too, loves to guard his mysteri-
ousness, and performs his extraordinary operations by
night (cp 3225[z4]8:, Ex. 1424). It is not unnatural t o
ask, how it comes about that elsewhere Yahw&is said to
‘ cover himself with light as it were with a garment ’
(Ps. 104z), and to think of the influence of the Iranian
religion. ( 3 ) Unmeaning repetitions in prayer may be
useless ; but repetitions which show earnestness are
considered by the narrator to be aids, not hindrances.
I t is a mistake, as Gunkel remarks, to speak of Lot’s
“weakness of faith.’ (4) But, if we may treat Abraham’s
converse with Yahwi: as a part of the narrative (it does
in fact belong- thanks to a supplementer- to the
section which links the Abraham-prelude to the Lot-
story), we have a riper fruit of religious thought in
1823-32. ‘ Not for Lot alone, but for all the righteous
men in Sodom, his prayer is uttered, a n d it is based
upon a fine sense of justice : ‘‘ Shall not the Judge of all
the earth do r i g h t ? ” And what is right? Not the
mere prescription of a legal c o d e ; justice must be
softened by compassion. Each of the supposed ten
righteous men of Sodom has links innumerable binding
hini to his fellow-citizens. Is he to be sent abroad
without any of those to whom nature o r custom has
attracted hini ? No ; a single righteous man can at
least (as in the case of Noah) save his family, and ’‘ for
ten’s sake I will not destroy the city” ’ (New Wodu!,
1245). I t must not be thought that because mythology
a n d , more widely regarded, the popular imagination have
largely influenced the Hebrew narratives, they are
therefore to a trained eye devoid either of historical o r
of religious interest.
To the hooks and articles cited under DEAD SEA, add the
commentaries of Dillmann, Holzinger, and especially Gunkel.
also Cheyne, New WorZd, 1236.245; Kraetzi
12. Literature. schmar, ZA I ’ W ! 7 8 r - q z ; Stucken, Astral‘-
mytken, Part ii., J.ot’ (‘the m ths attached
to the name of Lot are the torso of a primitive mytg ’).
T. K. C .
SODOM, VINE OF (Pi9 @$), Dt. 3232. See
SODOM, col. 4655 n. 2 ; VIKE, 5 2.
SODOMA (COAOMA) nom. 929, RV SODOM.
BODOMITISH SEA (mare Sodomiticlmr), 2 Esd. 5 7.
See D EAD SEA.
SOJOURNER (73). See STRANGER AND So-
JOURNER.
SOLDIER (la?;;? 17, 2 Ch. 25 13 ; CTPATIWTHC,
Mt. 89 etc.). See A RMY , W AR , 5 4.
1 These perishable formations change from year to year, a?
Blanckenhorn remarks (ZDPY1934, n. I). The ‘Lot’s Wife
of Warren may have altered since 1870. Rut others will no
doubt arise. On the connections of the story see Stucken, 8:;
110, and especially 231. For a late Arabian legendary ‘Lot’s
wife’ see Palmer, Desert of the Ezodus.
2‘ ‘Not much greater variety is there between the story of
Lot’s wife’s transformation into a pillar of salt and Niobe’s into
a stone. So wrote the old Anglican theologian, Dean Jackson
(u’or*s. 1 100).
4679
SOLOMON *
SOLOMON (il&$; COAOML,JN), son of David by
Bathsheba, and his snccessor as king of Israel.
[@ favours the form pipy. In the best MSS uahopwv and
uahwpovalternate ; uohoywvalmost always in NT ; in Acts 747,
however, Ti. with NAC (against BDEHP) adopts ~ d h o p w v hut,
Treg. and WH uohopwv. Cp Lag., Uhers. 53 86 96.1
T h e superficially plausible derivation from EZ8rn.
nihj, ‘ p e a c e ’ is retained by Kittel (Kiin. 6), but is
1. Name. against thc analogy of the other names
(critically regarded) in David’s family.
Another explanation has lately been proposed with
abundant learning and ingenuity. After summarising
it, we will pass on t o a third view. According to
Winckler,l the name a&py refers to a divine name n%
(slm), which is attested in the Phcenician proper name
nhvn?,and allusively in the title n 5 p - w (Is. 96 [SI).
Another form of the name of this deity was galman (cp the
Assyrian royal name Salman-&rid” and the Zaha+mv of Greek
inscri lions). This ’god is identifieh with ReJe h, and was
theregre a Canaanite Apollo. According to Ginckler, the
king’s true name was Dodiah (=Jedidiah, 2 S. 1225) ; the name
Warn6 or ‘ So!omon ’ like ‘ Bath-sheba ’ ( = ‘daughter of the
Moon-god’), is of m;thological origin, and was given to the
king by later writers in connection with ‘the transference of the
legend of Semiramis-Bilkis to Sheba.’ In fact, the only com-
plete parallel to the form geltima comes, according to him, from
Arabia (SalBmB). Elsewhere (Preuss. lahr66. 104 269; cp
GI2 286) Winckler puts the mythological connection thus :
‘Formed from the divine name belem (Ass. galman). It
corresponds to Neb0 whom it designates as the god of the
winter-half of the year (&dim is the west=Ass. Sulunz, sunset).
It would seem that this acute critic somewhat
exaggerates the bearings of mythology o n onomatology.
Certainly the analogy of the other names in David’s
family (as explained by the present writer) seems to be
opposed t o this scholar’s explanation. T h a t (Jonathan’
is composed, as Winckler and most scholars suppose, of
a divine name and a verb, is due, as could easily be shown
a t length, to misapprehension. ’ Jonathan‘is onlyanother
form of NETHANIAH( q . ~ . ) ; it is a modification of
the ethnic name Nethani = Ethani, ‘ Ethanite.’ That
‘ D a v i d ’ is a modification of a divine name is not
impossible (cp DOD, N AMES W I TH ), but is opposed to
the analogies of Dodiah (if this name is really correct)
and of Dodi ( M T Dodo, Dcdai). It is quite as
possible that Dod (whatever its ultimate origin) was a n
ethnic, and if, following analogies, we seek for an
ethnic as the original of n ~ bwe , cannot be blind to
the existence of 9xm~i. and of my? (see 2). For the
pronunciation later writers are responsible. T h e
true text of 2 S. 1224f: seems to suggest another
pronunciation, Shillurn6 (or ShallBm6?), arising out of
the story of David’s sin. See JEDIDIAH.
It is a long road which leads to the later conception
of ‘Solomon in all his glory.’ W e are here only
2. Eariy concerned with the strict facts, without
history. idealisation, which of course does not mean
that we have no sense for poetry, and no
sympathy with the changes of popular feeling. The
story of Solomon’s birth is given in 2 S. 112-1225-a
composite narrative which has already received con-
sideration (see B ATHSHEBA , JEDIDIAH). Certainly
there is much to learn from it ; certainly we should wish
to include it in a selection of fine Hebrew narratives. But
nith unfeigned regret we must pronounce it t o be in the
main unhistorical. T h e name Bathsheba, indeed, and
the historical character of its bearer are, one may
venture to hold, even after Winckler’s arguments, alike
secure. Jnst as y 3 1 n*ip ~ (Kirjath-arba?) is not ‘ t h e
city of F o u r ’ (the god whose numerical symbol was
four), so y 3 p n3 (Bathsheba) is not ’ the daughter of
Seven ‘ (the god whose numerical symbol was seven-.
i . e . , the Moon-god, cp SHEBA),and consequently
Bathsheba is not a mere pseudo-historical reflection of
IStar, the mythological daughter of the Moon-god.
1 Wi. GI2223; KAT(3)224. For the view of ahother
Ass riologist see Sayce, Hibb. Led. 57 ; Ear@ History, 42 j ;
cp Zmpson, TkeJonak Legend, 141f;
4680
 SOLOMON
\Ye may, however, admit that the story of David's 1 on very insecure data, needs to be revised. Certainly
treachery to UKIAH (g.3.) probably developed out of a 1 the narrative in I K. l j does not favour the view t h d
current oriental legendary germ, without of course
disparaging the value of the Bathsheba story as given
in z S. 112-122jfor other than purely historical purposes.
And we must also claim the right to extract a framnent
~~~~~ ~
of history from z S. 1127 12;56-25, rightly read; and
illustrated by the story of Solomon's accession in I K. 15,
and by the lists of David's sons in z S. 3 2 8 I Ch. 31s
The ' fragment of history ' is that Solomon had another
name, which name is given in our present text as
Jedidiah.'
Passing next to I K. 15,we find reason to think
with Winckler that Solomon's opposition to the claim
of Adonijah to succeed David was due not to his own
and Bathsheba's selfish ambition, but to the considera-
tion that after the successive deaths of Amnon and
Absalom he, not Adonijah, was the legitimate heir to
the throne. Here, however, we part from Winckler.
Bathsheba is for us no mythological figure, but the true
mother of Solomon ; she is in fact identical with AbigaiL2
T h a t Solomon's mother should bear two names in the
tradition is not more surprising than that a king who
oppressed the Israelites in early times should be called
both Jabin (Jamin)--Le., Jerahmeel- and Sisera-i.e.,
Asshur-both Jerahmeel and Asshur being N. Arabian
ethnic names (see SHAMGAR ii., 5 2). Bathsheba is in
fact equivalent to Bath-Eliam (z S. 1 1 3 ) or Bath-Ammiel
(I Ch.-35).
The name Bathshebareoresents Abieail as an Ishmaelite woman
and a daughter of Jerahmeel. So too n&w and the name out
of which >,-pi- has probably been corrupted-vi,z. hm-?re
equivalents. Salma describes its bearer as having Ishmaelite
or Salmzan a6nities .(see 5 I , end), Jedidiah as being
erahmeelite by extraction. The latter name too, a pears to
6e given to the son of Ahigail in the true text of z 8 . 3 3 and
I Ch.31, where the respective readings and 5 ~ 9 1are
manifestly wrong, and both most probably presuppose the
same original Sxam..
Adonijah's claim to the throne, however, must have
been based upon some theory. If he was not the
oldest living son of David, he may yet have been the
oldest of those born after David's accession. Probably
David both favoured his pretensions and accepted him
as co-regent. Unfortunately Adonijah neglected to
bring over to his side the so-called 'Cherethites and
Pelethites ' (Rehobothites and Z a r e p h a t h i t e ~ ) ,who ~
formed the royal body-guard, and with the aid of their
leader Benaiah, Solomon compelled the old king to
reject Adonijah.
In I K. 217 (cp 3. 21) it is stated that Adonijah
desired leave to make Abishag the Shunammite his
wife (cp WRS. Kinship. 83 8 ) . I t is possible that
Solomon, with the same object as Adonijah, actually
took ' Abishag' (the name comes from r d v o , like Bil$is
in the Semiramis legend from TUMUK~S) into his harem,
and that Rehoboamwas theson ofSolomon by 'Abishag. '
See SHUNAMMITIE.
Upon this theory Solomon was not one of the sons
born to David at Jerusalem ( z S. 514 I Ch. 35-8), and
the traditional view of his age at his accession,6 based
1 That the text of z S. 12 24f: is not in i t s original form, i s
evident ; a possible restoration will he found elsewhere (see
JEDIOIAH).The present form of the text seems to be due to an
editor who thought Jedidiah ('beloved of Yahwl: '?) too good a
name for the first child. By assigning this name to Solomon he
unconsciously made a concession to historical facts. For
] , cp JEDIDIAH.
S. A. Cook's theory, see AJSL 16 156x [ ~ g o o and
2 Abigail probably =Abihail (see NABAL), and Abihail appears
ultimately to come from Jerahmeel.
3 Wi. G I 2 245..
4 The explanation of ' Cherethites and Pelethites' (see J U D A H
5 4, PELETHITES)here given, is not that of Winckler ; but (lik;
S. A. Cook, AJSL16r77, n. 61 [April 19001) this able critic
recognises, quite independently of the present writer, that this
faithful warnor-band came from the Negeb.
5 @ A ( I K. 2 121, with about twenty other MSS and some
versions (Arm. etc.), gives Solomon only twelve years at his
accession, and Jerome (cp 132 ad Vitalem) asserts that the
468I
SOLOMON
1 Solomon was a young man (the rhetorical language
of I K . 3 76 I Ch. 29 I 22 5 cannot be regarded as
decisive) ; 'the hero of the c&p d"'tat displays all the
adroitness and astuteness of a practised politician.
How Solomon treated his opponents is stated elsewhere
(ADONIJAH, ABIATHAR,JOAB, S HIMEI ) ; the story,
which has a basis of fact (H ISTORICAL L ITERATLJXE ,
I ) , makes it difficult for a modern to idealise this
despotic prince. It is singular that ' N a t h a n the
prophet ' should have assumed the prominent position
which belongs rather to Benaiah ; l but ampler justice is
done to the priest ZADOK ( p . ~ . )for his energetic
support of the son of ' Bathsheba.' I t is probable that
the Jerusalem priesthood exacted a very full recompense,
and that fresh favours conferred on their body bore
fruit for Solomon in the early idealisation of his conduct
as a sovereign.
W a s the substitution of Zadok for Abiathar accom-
panied by changes in the cultus at Jerusalem?2 It is
38. Buildinge. a question which baffles the critical
student. T h e narrators give us much
that we could have spared, and withhold much that
would have been of great value to us. Their own interest
is largely absorbed in the buildings of Solomon, especi-
ally in that of the temple. That the description in its
present form comes (as-Kittelsupposes) from the Annals,
seems hardly probable; as it now stands, it may
perhaps represent a later age, to which the temple in
particular had become a subject of learned but not
altogether sober inquiry. See K INGS [BOOK], J 6,
P A L A C E , TEhIPLE (and cp Stade, GV113rEfi:. and
ZATCb-, 1883, pp. ~ z g f i ) . It is even to some extent
doubtful whether the whole story of the building of a
temple of Yahwk as well as of a royal palace outside
the city of David is not due to misapprehension. Accord-
ing to Winckler ( G Z 2 2 5 ~ 8 the
) true temple of Solomon
was merely a renovation of the old sanctuary of David
on its original site--i.e., within the city of David-
though it must apparently be admitted (see MILLO)
that this scholar's explanation of v d f o and consequently
the form in which he presents his theory needs recon-
sideration.
There is, however, another point, not less important,
3b, Hiram. and more capable of solution. Accord-
ing to the tradition in its present form
( M T and 6),the timber for building the temple was
furnished, together with artificers, by Hiram king of
Tyre. Therelation thus indicated between Israel and the
Tyrian king is, if accuratelyreported. in the highest degree
remarkable. If, as Winckler, who follows M T , interprets
what he thinks the historical truth, the king of Israel was
in vassalage to the king of Tyre (?), how is it that after
Solomon's time we hear nothing of attempts on the
part of Tyre to strengthen its hold upon Israel, and on
the part of Israel to free itself from Tyrian supremacy?
True, all on a sudden, in the ninth century, we hear of
an Israelitish king marrying a daughter of ' Ethbaal.
king of the Zidonians' ( I K. 1631). This, however, is
an equally singular and an equally suspicious statement,
when we consider that the most influential power in the
politics of Israel and Judah (putting aside Assyria) was
'hebraica veritas' agrees with @. Josephus (Ant. viii. 7 8 )
gives his age as fourteen ; he also says that he lived to 94 ! For
other traditional statements, see Nestle, Z A TW, 1882, pp. 312&,
and T h o l . Stud. ous Wzirtcwzberg, 1886, p. 160f: ; Kaufmann
ZATW, 1883, p. 18s ; Gautier, Rnr. de U h Z . et de jhilos.:
Nov. 1886; Lagarde, Mztfhil. 2 40, n. I . Stade (GVf1297)
says, not less than twenty years old. Kittel (Kh.6), referring
to I K. 1142 1421. doubtfully sugges;s eighteen.
1 Schwally ( Z A T W , 1892, p. 156) doubts whether Nathan
w a s really a prophet. That ~ 3 3 3 3('the prophet ') should prob-
ably be .>X?, 'the Nadabite,' is pointed out elsewhere
(PROPHET i6).
2 See Winckler ( K A R d ) q4), who inclines to think that
Zadok was introduced by the later legend in the interests of the
monotheistic idea.
4682
 SOLOMON
not Tyre but the N. Arabian Mugri. Now it so
happens that, as Winckler too, with extreme modera-
tion holds, i i y ( T y r e ? ) is miswritten for i i s ~(Miggur?)
in A m . l g and P s . 8 7 4 (cp T YRE). What, then, is
there to hinder us from supposing (if other critical
considerations favour this view) that the same error
has occurred elsewhere ? p s , also, is undoubtedly
miswritten sometimes for vm or p p How, then, do
we know that ‘ king of the p n s ’ in I K. 1 6 3 1 should
not rather be a king of the WIIP,’ in which case Spna
(cp SYTIVN) should of course be ’xyatp? T h e probability
that A h a b s matrimonial connection was with Musri,
not with Tyre, has been referred to under PROPHET
(I 7. col. 3862, with n. I ) ; and when we take into
consideration a fact which will be referred to presently
-viz. th& Solomon’s principal wife was a Migrite
princess-we shall see that if he went anywhere outside
the land of Israel proper for timber, political interests
would naturally impel him to go to the N. Arabian
MuSri. ( W e assume provisionally that the wooded
mountain districts of the Negeb were not in Solomon’s
possession.) Nor must we forget that ‘Ahiram’
(whence ‘ Hiram ’) is one of the most probable popular
corruptions of ‘ Jerahmeel.” Ahiram or Hiram might
indeed be the name of a king of Tyre ; but it might also
(cp Aholiab=Jer+meel?) be that of a N. Arabian
artificer.
It would not be critical to urge against this view of the seat
of Hiram’s kingdom that Josephusz quotes a passage from the
Tyrian history of Menander of Ephesus and another from that
of Dios, in which E;popas, king of Tyre, son of ‘A@fiaAos, is
said to have had intercourse with ‘Solomon, king of Jerusalem.
The date of Menander and Uios is resumably in the secona
century B.c., and though we may cre& them when they tell us
of the succession of the kings of Tyre, and of events not legend-
ary in character which they can only have known from ancient
authorities-i.e., from the Tyrian archives (which Jose hus
positively asserts that Menander at least had inspected)! we
cannot venture to trust them when they touch upon matters
closely related to the then current Jewish history. Thus when
Menander (in Jos. Anf. viii. 132) tells us that there was a drought
in Phcenicia, which lasted for a year and was closed through
the potent supplications of ’IBJj3ahos: king of Tyre, we divine
a t once that this is directed against the Jewish statement that
a long drought in the land of Israel was terminated through
the intercessions of Elijah4 and when EIpwpos is said by
Menander and Dios (Jos. A;t. viii. 5 3) to have had a match of
riddle-guessing with Solomon, we can see that this is based on
the Jewish story of the riddles by which the queen of Sheba
tested Solomon ( I K. 10 I).
W e have no extra- biblical authority for doubting
that if Solomon was indebted for building materials and
artificers to any foreign king, it was to the king of
MiSrim, not to the king of Tyre. According to the
most probable text of 2 S. 82 1 2 3 1 David had con-
quered both Missur and Jeralpneel (see Crit. Bd., and
c p S A U L ), so that if we hear of a king of Missur
in the reign of Solomon, we may assume that he for a
time at any rate ow-ned the supremacy of the king of
Israel. If so, there is nothing inconsistent in the double
statement that Solomon had his own workmen in the
mountains ( I K. 5 13 8 [27 S I ) , and that Hiram sent
workmen to cut down wood at Solomon’s request.5
Nominally, the mountain country of Jerahmeel (called,
as we shall see, GehdBn) was a part of Solomon’s
dominions, so that as suzerain he had a right to send
1 Kittel (on I Ch. 14 I) prefers the form Hiiram ; Schrader
(KATP) 170), Hirom. Cp H IRAM end. The view taken
above seems to the present writer) the best. Urumilki is
attested as a Phcenician royal name in an inscription of Sen-
nacherib ( K A T(2)185, cp also ism^, an ancestor of Yehaw-
melek, CISi. no. I), and Urumilki probably= Jerahmeel.
2 Ant. viii. 5 3 (09 144-149) ; c. A#.117J (88 112-120).
3 Dios, too, says Josephns, was trusted for his exactness
(c. A#. i. 17 nz).
4 Winckler ( K A T @ 2) 5 0 ) gives a different explanation of
Menander’s assertion, which, however startling, might be accept-
able, if it did not presuppose the traditional Hebrew text of the
Book of Kings.
5 As the text stands Solomon asks Hiram for help in the
hewing of timber ( I K. 5’1-10). It is in the hewing of stone that
Solomon’s labourers are represented as taking a prominent p i t .
4683
SOLOMON
workmen to do his bidding1 The forms of courtesy,
however, may have required that he should request the
vassal-king to send his own more skilled labourers to
direct and to aid those of Solomon, and in order to
prevent war from breaking out between Israel and
Migur during the long building operations at Jeru-
salem, as well as to foster a more friendly feeling based
upon mutual services, the Israelitish king is reported
to have paid Hiram (Jerahmeel) annually large quantities
of wheat and oiL3
W e are obliged sometimes, however reluctantly, to
form historical conjectures, and this seems to be the
most conservative one which, on the present subject,
with due account of textual criticism, can be made
plausible; hut the fact, mentioned at a later point
(I 7).of the ill-feeling which Cusham or Aram ( =Jerah-
nieel) bore to Israel leads us to question its accuracy.
Only by force and by the transplantation of part of the
subject population ( z S. 1231, see SA W ) could David
keep his hold on the Jerahmeelite Negeb. I t is prob-
able that Solomon found it even more difficult than
his father to do this, and from I K. 911-14 it would
appear that Solomon was forced by the king of Missur
to cede to him twenty cities in the land of Jerahmeel,
and over and above this to pay a hundred and twenty
talents of gold.4
T h e existence of a grave historical problem cannot,
it would seem,.be denied. W e have offered the best
solution of it at our disposal. It only needs to be added
that the misstatement that Solomon procured timber
and workmen from the king of Tyre must have been
facilitated by the fact that the name ‘ Hiram ’ was actu-
ally borne by a king of Tyre, and that it was favoured
by the observation of later Jews that the mountains of
the Negeb were not in their time abundantly wooded
(the trees having been cut down), whereas Lebanon
was still well provided with timber. Whether, as
Winckler supposes, part of the Lebanon was in the
possession of Solomon, need not here be considered.
It is important, however, to mention these necessary correc-
tions of names in MT. (I ) The mountain country where timber
was sought ( I K. 5 6) was called not Lebanon hut Gehdan (from
AI. jib& cp GEBAL),the pebple of whici are, in I K. 5 18,
called Gebalites.6 The same correction is plausible elsewhere
e.&, Is. 14 8 Zech. 11 I , etc. (2) In I K. 9 1 1 13 $s,n and 511;
are both popular corruptions of SNani*. (3) In I K . l O i r f:
2 Ch. 28[719 1 .3 the ‘almuggim’or ‘algummrm’ timber should
rather be designated ‘Jerahmeel ’ timber. It came (2 Ch. 2 8 [TI)
not from Ophir, but from Lebanon--Le., Geh&n. Cp ALMUC
TREES (end), where the theory mentioned-that almug-wood
came from Lebanon ( z Ch. 28)-points in the direction of the
critical view here recommended.
W e need not deny that Solomon was a builder, or
that he was aided bv Terahmeelite
I - . artificers ifor which
4, commerce. we have partial analogies 6 in Bezalel,
b. Uri, b. Hur. and Oholiab. b. Ahi-
samach, in Ex. 3 1 ) . One of these (whose father was a
Migrite, but his mother a n Israelite of the Negeb’) bore
the same name as that assigned to the Migrite king-
1 The 6vvaurdpara (?)which Solomon ‘ opened ’ in Lebanon
(Gebalon?) according to B H A (&uvaurrfovra,@L) in I K. 2 46c
may, as Winckler thinks, have been mines. See Winckler, ALt.
Unt. 176 ; G I 2 261, n. 2.
2 Twenty years are assigned to them in I K. 9 10 ; cp 6 38 7 I.
3 I K. 5 11 [25], where for the second 13 read n? (see COR).
4 The best part of this is due to Winckler (GI2262 ; K A Ti3)
217). H e thinks that the orieinal which underlies the Dresent
t% of I K. 9 14 is isis& (o1.n) &>i, whye &n is, a
gloss inserted a t the wrong place. The sense IS and he (VIZ.
Solomon) sent to the king of Tyre [Hiram] 120 tilents of gold,’
i.e. Solomon had to make up for the inadequate cession of
terhory by a large payment in gold. The king however with
whom Solomon had to do was not Tyrian hut Ihigrite, aAd the
ceded territory not ‘ Galilaean ’ hut Jerahmeelite.
6 I K. 5 18 [32] should run h n ? : ’>?? h y f l i : ’J3 h;!
W$?, ‘and the Ishmaelites and the’Jerahmeeli&-the Getal-
ita-fashioned them.’ Without the key to the names critics
have been obliged to assume a deep corruption of the text (cp
GEBAL, I).
6 All the names here quoted, except the first, are Jerahmeelite.
The tribes of Judah and Dan were both largely mixed with
Jerahmeelites.
7 His father was a Misrite (ymnot *is), his mother either a
4684
 SOLOMON
viz. Hiram, ie., Jerahmeel ; the Chronicler ( z Ch. 212
[13]) calls him Hurani-abi, but this surely must be the
same name ( 5 n ~ m , = qpiin). ~ C p H I R A M 2,, and on
the place where he did his work ( I K. 7 4 6 ) see TEBAH.
Nor need we altogether reject the other traditions of the
intercourse between Solomon and ' Hiram.' If the view
of the historical facts underlying I K. 911-14 adopted
above be correct- i.e., if hostilities broke out between
the king of Missur and Solomon, in which Israel
was worsted-it is reasonable to suppose that the war
was occasioned, not only by the craving for revenge,
but also by a desire on ' Hiram's ' part for commercial
expansion. Having no port of his own, he was glad
.
to use E ZION - GEBER (q...) at the head of the Gulf of
'Akabah, which formed part of Solomon's dominion.
Hiram had indeed no mariners to send, but he sent 'ser-
vants' of his own-ie., commissioners and merchants
-to buy and sell at the places where the ships might
touch. The chief object which both kings longed for
was naturally gold ; Ophir, the port of the great Arabian
or E. African gold-land, was the goal of these early
voyagers (see G OLD , I VORY , O PHIR , T RADE, § 49).
T h e very different, commonly-held, opinion that ' at
Ezion-geber (which [Solomon] retained, in spite of the
return to Edom of prince Hadad) a ship was built, similar
to those employed by the Phcenicians in their voyages to
Tarshish (and hence called Tarshish ships), and manned
in part by experienced Tyrian sailors,' and that ' from
that port it was dispatched at intervals of three years
to Ophir. bringing back thence gold, silver, ivory, valu-
able woods, and precious stones, as well as curious
animals such as apes and peacocks,' appears to re5t
on an inaccurately transmitted text and a not sufficiently
thorough-going historical criticism. T h e best form that
gratitude to past critics can take is surely not to repeat
temporary conclusions, but to carry forward their work.
W e venture, therefore, to present some of the most
pressing changes of view to which we have recently
been led by independent research.
Even apart from the rendering of ;'$ ( I K.926, 65 v&)
by ' ship ' (RV, ' a navy of ships '), which has had the authority
of Hitzig and Kittelz (Hisf.2 I%), and the question as to the
history of Hadad, there is much that is very doubtful in the
opinion referred to. The 'apes' and 'peacocks' are considered
elsewhere (see especially OPHIn, P EACOCKS ) ; on the difficult
question relative to the mention of silver as well as of gold in
I K. 1022, see S ILVER , s 2. 'Valuable woods' should rather
he 'a rare, fragrant wood, analogous to the spices or spice-plants
of the queen of Sheha' (read D'~~l-i.e., eagle-wood [see
ALOES), not D'?&-i.e., Jerahmeelite wood). The three
passages bearing 'on Hiram's participation in the Ophir ex-
peditions are (u) I K. 9 27, (6) 10 11, (c) 10 22. As for (a),the
true text, translated, should probably run, 'And Hiram sent his
servants, JeraBmeelites, on the ships with the servants of
Solomon.' n1.1~.WIN is a corruption ofp*$NyDu*,and p,n;q
pf p,iunni.. Either ' Jerahmeelites' or (better) ' Ishmaelites
IS a glass or variant. In ( 6 ) we should r e d , 'And also the
. .
merchant-ships . brought from Ophir very much eagle-wood
and precious stones.' o m should he l n b (D and 3 con-
founded) ; cp Prov. 31 14. In (c) ' for the king had a t sea ships
(galleys) with oars3 (mid? '?E)': to this was added in the
earlier text lnb 'l$ 'merchant
, ships' (omit Up, an editorial
insertion), which is a gloss on ' D *IN. The phrase 'Tarshish
ships' is a hopeless puzzle until we apply methodical textual
criticism to the Hebrew phrase. See T A n s m s H , 0 7.
That Solomon, at one period of his life, had friendly
relations with Mu+ is shown by his marrying a daughter
of Pir'u king of Misrim (so beyond doubt
68.
princess. we should read in I K. 3 I 9 16 in place of the
very improbable M T 4). This was pointed
Naphtiihite ('ni??!, not h!)
or a Danite, in either case a
woman of the Neeeb.
' See I K. 7 I L, :_ 2 Ch. 2 IA. and CD
I
w3
1
a In ffk9' Kon. ' 87, and-KGi?,
adopts the col1ecti:e meaning ' fleet.'
'
fes.;' ZGi, however, Kittel
3 See TARSHISH, 0 7, where U;@-'X?, Is. 33 21,is compared.
4 It is indeed difficult to imaqine a king of Egypt giving one
of his daughters to a vassal king (cp WMM, As. u. Eur. 390)
in Palestine.
4685
SOLOMON
out by the present writer,' and afterwards independently
by Winckler. T o the notice of the marriage in 3 I it is
added in 9 16 that Pir'u took the field against a certain
city, slew its inhabitants, and gave it as a portion to
his daughter, Solomon's wife.2 'The place is called in
the traditional text Gezer, and its inhabitants Canaanites ;
but both Judg. 129 and Josh. 16 10lead ns to doubt this,
and it is in itself more probable that for i!! (Gezer)
, we
should read i w e (Geshur), and for *>y33;1(the'Canaanite),
> :
as elsewhere, * j l p n (the Kenizzite); some place in the
far SW. of Palestine is presumably intended (see
GESHUR,2).
Kittel (cp Bhmey, Hastings, DB 2 8 6 2 ~ does
) well to separate
9 16-l7a (as far as 713) from wu. 176-22; it has evidently been
taken from a context which spoke of the marriage. At the
same time its present context 1s full of interest, and we must
return to it later ($ 7).
T h e Arabian land of S HEBA (q.v.), too, was interested,
as legend asserted, in Solomon. Its queen is said to
6b. meen have actually come to Jerusalem to test
of shebaa Solomon's ~ i s d o m . ~According to Kent
(Hist. ofthe Hebrew PeopZt?,1179)the object
of her visit was to bring about a commercial treaty with
Solomon. But surely the form of the legend is late.
It is Tiglath-pileser and Sargon who tell us of queens
of ' m a t Aribi,' and ' m a t Aribi' (see KAT(2)414) is not
S h e b a ; indeed, the SabEan empire arose much later
than Solomon. Probably, as Winckler suggests (GZ
2267), the queen of Sheba is but a reflection of the
Misrite princess whom Solomon married. How Solomon
came to be called the wise king, pal- exceZZence, is not
clear. If it meant originally that he was as skilful in
preserving, as his father had been in creating, a king-
dom, the epithet was greatly misplaced. More prob-
ably, however, the title arose from the close intercourse
between Solomon and the N. Arabian kings and kinglets.
T h e hlisrites and the Jerahmeelites were celebrated for
their wise proverbs and apologues. T o heighten Solo-
mon's glory, it was stated by the later legend that, just
as he was greater than his neighbours in war. so he
excelled them in their own special province of wisdom
(see I K. 5 9 f: [430f:]). How far Babylonian influences
affected him we are unable to say positively. But the
phenomena of the early Genesis stories as explained by
the present writer lead him to think that N. Arabia
transmitted quite as much as Babylonia, though in
doing so it could not avoid augmenting a mass of ideas
and beliefs ultimately of Babylonian origin. See SHAV-
S H A , also CREATION, P A R A D I S E , and cp E AST [CHIL-
D R E N OF], E T H A N , HEMAN,M AHOL .
Legend also lays great stress on Solomon's just
iudcment- a caDacitv for which was indeed one asDect
I -
6. Solomon,s 'of Hebrew ' wisdom ' ; but there is no
satisfactory evidence for this, and the
despotism. hichlv oriental storv in I K. 3 1 6 - 2 8
has a striking paraylei in a Buddhist jataka. W e can,
however, most probably assert that Solomon was highly
despotic in his methods ; on this, historians who differ
widely on other points are agreed.4 If we are rightly
informed, Solomon treated both the Israelites and the
surviving Canaanites as only good enough to labour,
like the Egyptian fellahs till recently, at the royal build-
ings (513 f: [27 f:], cp 1218). H e is also said to have
divided the country ( ' all Ishmael ' I)into twelve depart-
ments (to a large extent, it would seem, independent of
tribal divisions), each of which was under a deputy or
1 /QR, July 1889, pp. 559J Cp Winckler, G I 2 263 ; K A T(3)
236.
Maspero's expansion of this passage (MT) in StruRgrc oy
2
the Nations 738 is unduly imaginative.
3 Menand'er of'Ephesus (as we have seen) represents Solomon
and Hiram as the r i d sages.
4 Cp Kittel, Hisf.2 186 ; M'Curdy, N P M 2 155 (0 j24).
5 Other passages to he referred to prezently seem to show
that the N. Arabian subject population was specially employed
in the corvbe, though if Israelites had to do forced labour the
surviving Canaanites would of course not he spared. It i; not
well to attempt a too positive solution of such problems.
4686
 SOLOMON
prefect (+ 47=:w, 21. ~ g ) ,charged with the duty of
keeping u p a constant supply of court luxuries, and also,
we may be sure, of collecting the taxes, and perhaps too
of providing forced labour.’ In the Lebanon (? Gebalon)
alone he is said to have had 10,ooo labourers constantly
employed ( 5 14 [z8]). T h e overseer of the corvCe was
the hated Adoniram ( I K.46 5 1 4 ; c p 1218). N o
wonder that discontent became rife, especially in the
powerful tribe of Ephraiin How a leader of the rebels
was found is told elsewhere (see J EROBOAM , I).
At the same time there are certain passages in our
composite narrative which may make us hesitate to
accept the darkest picture of Solomon’s despotism. I n
Q z a - m , which we may hesitate to regard as merely a
late attempt to whitewash Solomon’s character,2 it is
expressly said that the corvee was limited to non-
Israelites. And the singular statements respecting the
number of Solomon’s ’ stalls of horses ’ (426 [5 61) and of
his chariots and horsemen (1oz6), when critically in-
spected, a i p e a r rather to be statements respecting the
number of his Cushite, Jerahmeelite, and Zarephathite
servants (see Crit. Bib.). T h e narrative in I K. 12 no
doubt ascribes the separation of N. and S. to the hateful
corvee ; but the account is too anecdotal to be strictly
historical, and surely the forced service, so far as it
existed, pressed heavily on the S. as well as on the N.
Certainiy Jeroboam was an Ephrathite. But there may have
heen a southern, as well as a northern, Ephrath ; Jeroboam’s
mother (see JEROBOAM, I ) was a Misrite, and the name of his
clan (see NEXAT)may plausibly be explained as Arabian. And
as for the statement (11 28) that Jeroboam was placed ‘over the
labour of the house of Joseph,’ it is possible that here and in
Am.06 rDi9 I
(10’)has been miswrittcn for ’ C ~ ’ = ~ N Y O O(Ish-
*
mael).3
W e have assumed that Solomon’s relation to MuSri
was not that of supremacy, but that of dependence. I t
,. was he lord should be frankly stated, however,
of the Negeb? that there is a considerable body of
evidence which, rightly understood,
points in an opposite direction. ‘ j r ) - T h e r e is the
passage already referred to ( 2 Ch.82). where Hiram
is represented as the ceder of the twenty cities. ( 2 ) I n
close proximity to this, it is said ( z Ch. 83) that
Solomon went to Hamath-zobah and prevailed against
it. Now Hamath-zobah here, as in z S . 8 3, we take to
be partly a corrupted, partly a manipulated reading ;
the true text gave Maacath-zarephath-Le., the Zare-
phathite Maacath. And the strong cities which Solomon
built (I K. 9 15 [end], 17-19) were probably called Hazor,
1 The brevity of the above statement is justified by the present
state of textual criticism. The document to which it refers
(I I<. 4 7-78 [ 5 8 ] ) is admittedly ohscure. ‘The text ’ says Ben-
zinger, ‘ is a good deal corrupted, and has received ihterpola-
tions.’ In special articles on the names (see also FOWL FATTED)
some of the difficulties are dealt with. The point of &ew, how-
ever, in these articles is not more advanced than that of critical
commentators in gen‘eral. A further application of the key
which Winckler (only half-conscious of its wide-reaching con-
sequences) put into our hands, when he showed that OqIfin
sometimes stood for O.?+n-i.e., the N. Arabian Musri-and
that this country exerciied a persistent political influence on
the Israelites, has results which, if correct are of the utmost
importance for the early regal period of tde history of Israel.
It becomes probable that Kittel’s remark (which was thoroughly
justified from a conservative textual point of view) that the
table of prefects ‘ only concerns Israel proper inasmuch as the
conquered territories are referred to ( 4 2 1 [;I]) in a different
style,’ is the reverse of the fact. The present writer holds that
the twelve prefects were placed not over ‘all Israel’ (as the
traditional text has) but over ‘all Ishmael’ (a parallel error to
that in z S. 24 I z : see TAHTIM-HODSHI~ i.e., over the Negeb
-that in 4 z z J (5 2 $1 the account of Solomon’s ‘provision for
one day’ has grown out nf a list of the peoples or tribes of the
Negeb, and that in 426 [56] the true text affirms that the
Cushites, Jerahmeelites, Ishmaelites, and Zarephathites were
servants to Solomon. I K. 4 20 is the only passage which dis-
tinctly hreaks the connection. See Cvit. Bib.
2 This is the view of Kittel and Benzinger. The statements
of 9 20.21 are thought by them to be refuted by a reference to
5 13 [27] 11 28 12 4. The text of these passages, however, will
not bear the stress that is laid upon it. See preceding note
(near end).
3 On Am. 6 1-14 which a pears to the present writer to refer
to the Israelites s&ed in t& Negeb, see Crii. Bib.
4687
SOLOMON
F h m e e l , Geshur, Beth-horon (in the S.), Baalath,
raniar in Arabia.’ ( 3 ) There are also the passages
(426[56] 10 26) referred to above, which, when critically
emended, appear to assert the reduction to bondage or
serfdom of a large portion of the Jeral?nieelite popula-
tion. And (4)there is a singular statement (1014f:)
respecting the amount of gold which came every year
to Solomon, the close of which should run nearly thus-
‘ apart from the tribute (zijv) of the Zarephathites and
the Jeral?meelites (cp S PICE - MERCHANTS ) and all the
kings of Arabia. ’
These passages, however, seem to prove nothing but
the strong determination of later writers to idealise the
reign of Solomon. That Solomon was, for a time at
any rate, lord of the Negeb (with the exception of
‘ Hiram’s’ twenty cities) may be admitted. That h e
had battles in the Negeb is also true, and his foe was
no minor chieftain but the king of MkSur himself, and
Solomon was worsted in the conflict. T h e reference to
HAD AD^ and to K E Z O N ~in I K. 1114-25 and to Jero-
boam’s journey to MiSrim in a. 4 0 , ~confirm the view
that Solomon‘s position in the Negeb was seriously and
frequently threatened. It is noteworthy that Rezon is
said to have ‘ reigned in Damascus ’ (rather Cusham),
just as Hadad ‘ reigned over Aram ’ ( i . e . , Jerahmeel).
Evidently there was a strong jealousy between Israel
and the neighbouring peoples of Jerahmeel and MiSsur.
( C p Stade, GVZ 1 303. who, however, adheres to MT. )
T h e references to Solomon’s horses, a s we have
seen, need to be carefully inspected; they have been
much misunderstood.
There is evidence enough that D ‘ p D
8. bfemnWFJ (horses), and 0’??8 (Cushites), 1131 (chariot),
t o horses. and ~fi~n-p(Jerahrnee1)have an unfortunate
tendency to get confounded, and this con-
fusion has affected the story of Solomon.
Still, we need not doubt that Solomon had, not
indeed ‘ chariot-cities’ (see MARCABOTH), but at least
horses and chariots. On the Zocuscbssicas, T K . 1028f::.
see H ORSE , § I (s), M IZRAIM , § 2u, T RADE , 5 49.
I t is a question, however, whether criticism does not
make it a plausible view that the MiSrim from which
Solomon derived horses and chariots was the N.
Arabian rather than the N. Syrian referred to in these
articles. This at least can with much probability b e
stated, that, whilst there were nomadic tribes in N.
Arabia whose riding animal was specially the camel (sed
C AMEL , 2). there was also a settled population skilled
in the useful arts and riding on horses (see Crit. Bib. ).
Our information on these points is scanty, but a nega-
tive attitude towards the inference here stated is possible
only at the cost of rejecting critical facts which all hang
together, and throw a light on many dark places in the
history of Israel.
T h e total result of our study of Solomon is that his
1 Implying emendations of the text : see Crit. Bi6. See also
T AMAR TADMOK T RADE 9 50. The reader will find the old
view ai;d the ne& in coilision, hut this is inevitable. The
r b l q m s before us are partly of a text-critical, partly of a
istorical character.
a Cp T RADE, 0 50, where the corrected printing (cp Ch.)
is admitted. We must add, however, that very probably
yi~n ning has arisen out of E*nglm, written a t the end as a
correction of oqnn : y51~n,as in Neh. 3 32,=D*5unny; and of
this wine word inon i s also a corruptioii (0= 0).
3 Hadad was probably an Arammite (?>!:)-?.e., a Jerah-
meelite-rather than an Edomite : see Crit. Si’s.on z S. S 13f:
Winckler ( K A TP)240) independently suggests that Hadad
was of Aram-Zoha, not of Edom. Aram-Zoba, however, is
really Aram-Zarephath, according to the present writer’s x iew
of the original text. See ZOBA. We must not, howeler, con-
found the soheres of action of the two adventurers. Hadad and
Rezon.
4 Rezon was a fugitive from his lord the king of Zarephath
(= Mancath-Zarephath, above).
5 See /QR uly 1899, p p 551.556. As against Winckler
(KAT@)241,’tLe present writer thinks that ‘Shishak’ in U. 40
is merely an error for *I+ (see P HARAOH, S H I S H A K , 2).
6 Cp, however, CHARIOT, $ 5, CITY 0,and Wi. GI 2 210.
4688
 SOLOMON SON O F GOD
political importance has been very much exaggerated. before the time of AIohammed (AGbiKka, 1zz), tound a place in
9. political A l r e d y in I K. 424 [54] we find the the Koran, and gave Solomon (SuleirnXii) L: labling fame
throughout the hloslem East. The story of Solonion, the
extent of his kingdom idealised as that hoopoe and the queen of Sheha in the Koran (Snr. 27) closely
importmce. of David had been. It is not difficult to follows'the second Targum to Esth. 12, where the Jewhh
fables about him may be read at large. Solomon was supposed
account for this. T h e geographical statement in 4 2 4 to owe his sovereignty over demons to the possession of a seal
[ 5 4 ] arises simply from a misinterpretation of 1 ~ (niihiir)
; on which the 'most great name of God' was engraved. See
in a. 21 [a I]. which really means the ' nalpl Migrim,' Lane, Arabian Nig/tts, Introd., n. 21, and chap. 1, n. 15.-
w.n.s.1
but was supposed to mean t h e I3uphrates.l Later For a survey of Solomon's reign in connection with the longer
ages went farther in the sade course, a n d i n Pss. 45 history see I SRAEL, 86 23-2j ; on Solomon's psalm (?),CREA-
and 72 (the latter of which, however, has received a TION, i 16, and on two supposed daughters of Solomon, see
later insertion) his life furnishes the framework for SALMAH. T. K . C.
pictures of the hlessianic king. Against this idealisa- SOLOMON'S PORCH (H CTOh [TOY] coho-
tion the redactor of ECCLESIASTES (g.~.)in his own MWN[T]OC), Jn. 1023 Acts 512. see TEMPI.&, § 30f:
way protests.
We now turn to Solomon's religious position. Was SOLOMON'S SERVANTS, CHILDREN OF ('J3
he a polytheist? Did he ever, as W. E. Barnes &$ *77Q), a guild of persons attached to the second
(Hastings, DB 25116) expresses it, ' patronise tempie, nieutioned in Ezra255 58 Keh. 7 5 7 60 1 1 3 f
10. Not a foreign worship ? ' An affirmative answer is
polytheist. (yioi A O ~ A W N CAAUMWN [BAAL,]; Ezra255 y.
suggested b y I K. 111-8. It is plain, how- ABAHCCA [Bl; 258 y. A C S A H C ~ A M A PI. y. AEAH-
ever, from B's-Lext. as well as from the phenomena of C ~ A [A]), ~ A with the NETHIXIM (q.v.), and sometimes
MI'. that the original has been much expanded b y ( z . ~ .Neh.
, 32631 1 0 2 9 ) apparently included under thni
later hands from a religious motive." There was no term. Bertheau-Ryssel leaves it uncertain whether this
bad faith in this ; the later writers simply recast history guild of servants of Solomon ' grew out of a small part
in the light of certain fundamental principles-those of of the Canaanitish bondservants of Solomoil ( I I<.
Deuteronornp ( c p KINGS [BOOK], 6). And their 92.5) which may have been assigned to the temple.
procedure appears more startling than it really was, The probability is, however, that the phrase has nothing
owing to the fact that the ethnic names a n d the names t o do with Solomon, but is corrupt. On Solomon's
of t h e gods have been accidentally corrupted. T h e corvee, see SoLokfoN, 6.
original statement probably was that which underlies Just as one can hardly doubt that the so-called nPtltinirn are
11 7 . ' 'Then did Solomon build a sanctuary for the god really the Ethanites, so the 62ni 'ob& .?2L3m6h must, it would
of Cusharn a n d Jerahmeel '-i. e., for his M&te wife ; :%em, be either the 6 M '&d-5aZamzZ or the 6Pnnd '&d-'P&im.
Ob.Sd-'idCim is probably a corruption of *arZ&'P&m-i.e.
this probably stood in connection with the account of Arabia of Edom, and '06d-kl&nahof brri6-Salaniri-i.e., Arabii
Solomon's marriage ( c p 16 31-33). of the Salmaeans (see SALMAH, 2). The Jerahmeelites and
Various comments on this were inserted in the margin, and Edomites seem to have been strongly mixed with ure Israelites
introduced by the redactor or redactors into the text. Izstly, after the exile. One of the families of the 8hed-edom or
corruption transformed 'the god of Cusham' into 'Chemosh the 'Arab-edom guild (if we may call it so) bears the name ' bZnt
god (ahomination) of Moah,' and ' Jerah,meel ' into Milcom the Hassaphereth' (or Sophereth)-<.e., bEne SrZrephBthim, or Zare-
god (ahomination) of the h'ne Ammon. In what is now u. I, phathites. See SOFHERETH. T. K. C.
' Jerai+ieelite, Miyite, Rehobothite ' became ' Moahite, Am-
monite, Edomite(from "Aranimite,"a variant to "Jerahmeelite "), SOLOMON'S SONG. See CANTICLES.
Zidoiiim, and Hittite,' and io what is now D. 3, 'princesses SOLOMON, WISDOM OF. See WISDOM OF
Ishm celite5' became 'princesses seven hundred,' and 'concu-
hines lilirnoelites ' became 'concubines three hundred.' SOLOMON.
'That Solomon had a number of wives, both Israelite SOMEIS (COMBEIC [BA]). I Esd. 934 RV=Ezra 1038
a n d non-Israelite. is probable enough, but he did not SHIMEI, 16.
make altars for all of them, nor did he himself combine
the worship of his wives' gods with that of Yahw.8. He SON OF GOD
can have had n o thought of denying the sole divinity of CONTENTS
Yahwe in the land which was YahwP's 'inheritance.'
1. IN THE OLD TESTAMENT AND PHILO.
It is a distortion of the true text when 6%'represents
Solomon as ' burning incense and sacrificing ' (iOupLa Synonym of ' god ' (+ I). The king (8 5).
Term for an 'ailgel' ($2). The Messiah (8 6).
KC^ FOuc) to foreign gods.S That this ambitious king Offspringof a god (6 3). One raised from the dead (8 7).
had such a chastened piety as we find in I K. 814-61 Figurative use (8 4). The Logos (5 8).
( c p Driver, Intr.(6)zooj?) is on all grounds iuconceiv- 11. I N THE N EW TESTAMENT.
able ; but we have no reason to doubt that according to
i. In S'noptics ($5 9-22), Proclamation by demons ($ 18).
his lights he was a faithful worshipper of Yahw.8, so far Principles of criticism (5 IO). Peter's confession (# 19).
as this was consistent with his desootic inclinations. Genuine sayingsof Jesus(O11). High priest's adjuration ( $ 2 0 ) .
~ i r ir u e a p v ~ ~ y y uUdW~K 01 W~SUOIII, again, m e compvlririvii Jesus'sself-coiisciousnesr(§ 12). Centurion's exclamation (5 21).
of an Egyptian Hellenist, who from internal evidence is jud ed Hymn to Father and Son ($13). Origin of title (5 22).
to have lived somewhat earlier than P&lo Son's limited knowledge (6 14). ii. In Fourth Gospel($ 23).
11. Later (see WISDOM O F SoLonroN), Solomon is Baptismal formula (5 IS). iii. In Epistles (8 24).
idealisation. introduced uttering words of admonition, Allegoryofhushandmen ($ 16). Historical significance of title
imbued with the spirit of Greek philosophers, Proclamation by voices etc. (6 25).
to heathen sovereigns. The so-called Psalter of Solomon, on (5 '7Af. Literature ($ 26).
the other hand, a collection of Pharisee Psalms preserved to us I n the Semitic languages the individual is often
only in a Greek version, has nothing to do with Solomon or the designated a s a 'son ' of the species to which he be-
t r i d i r i n n i l ronrention of hi< n ~ r ~ o n
and
. tn m x m
F C P ~ Q nsme

L K . 11 31). But Jewish legend was not content with this, and,
starting from a false interpretation of Eccles. 28, gave him have been-designated
- as ben &ih&z (Aram., dar Z'ihin).
sovereignty over demons, to which were added (by a perversion 1. Synonv,m This is suggested by Gen. 62-4 Ps. 836
of I K. 4 3 3 ) , lordship over all beasts and birds, and the power of
of Dan. 325. As early a s the second
understanding their speech. These fables passed to the Arabs century B . C . the 6nP PZJhinz in Gen. 62 4
- ~

1 Cp F,GYIT,BROOK OF, and see Wi. GI 2 254.

were understood in some circles to be angels, a n d this
2 See Renzinqerand Kittel, and cp Driver, Iafr.(W,192. interpretation is certainly nearer the truth than t h e
3 See, however, Burney (Hastings' DB2865n, notet), who rationa!ising exegesis that made the fathers of t h e
favours @L, and thinks that the fact 'has,heen toned down by giants ' sons of mighty men ' or ' pious folk ' (see § I ) .
some later hand into the statement of MT.
1 On the Aprocrvphal ' PsaIms of Solomon ' see APOCALVPTIC But the term can scarcely have conveyed originally the
LITERATURE,-## 7jI85. c p ak0 APOCRYPHA, 5 14. 1 idea of ' angels.'
~ At t h e time when the myth was first
4689 469
 SON OF GOD
told in Judah, it is not likely that the doctrine of
angels had yet developed. As ’ the daughters of men ‘
were siniply ’ women,’ so ‘ the sons of the gods ’ were
‘gods.’ Such a usage of the phrase must have been
deeply rooted, since even in the Hasmonaean age ‘ sons
of ‘Ely6n’ was a n expression employed as a synonym
of ’ gods.’ In Ps. 8 2 6 bni ‘eban is used in the second
hemistich as an equivalent of &him in the first. I n
Dan. 3 25 the celestial being seen in the fiery furnace is
called bur Zlihin (cp Pesh. ). This is indeed explained
by mal‘Zkih, ‘his angel,’ in 328, and so the phrase was
undoubtedly understood by the author. Bnt it is not
probable that the Jews of the Maccabaean period called
an angel bur Phihin; as good monotheists they no
doubt said 6ur &hi. T h e author, however, en-
deavoured to make the speeches of pagan kings and
queens more plausible by putting upon their lips such
phrases as, in his judgment, they would naturally use.
H e lets them speak of the ‘ wisdom of gods ’ (511) and
the ‘spirit of holy gods’ (45J [SA] 511). As these
expressions were borrowed from pagan phraseology,
bur PZihin was probably drawn from this same source.
If the polytheistic neighbours of Israel employed the
phrase, they are likely to have meant by it not ‘ a n
angel,’ but a ‘ god.’ Even in Job 1 6 387, the ‘sons of
tile gods ’ are apparently conceived of as divine beings,
subordinate to the Most High, but still associated with
the elements, stars, or nations, over which they once
reigned as independent rulers; and the same may be
true bf Ps. 29 (bni ilim).
Whilst originally these divine beings were not ‘angels,’
it is natural that in course of time they should become
2. Designation identified with the special class of
of an ,angel., ‘ messengers ’ (mul’dkim). I n Gen.
62 4, some MSS of d ( A 37, 72, 75)
read oi 6yyehor TOO 8eo0, and this reading seenis io
have been found by many patristic writers (cp also
muh’ki in the margin of Syr.-Hex., and the Persian
Vs. ), though the majority of MSS and daughter-versions
have the more literal ol uioi TO; 8~06. Such a reference
to angels is assumed in many passages.
So in Eiioch 6 2 (01 ~ W F A O Ld o i 08pavoir, Giz. frg. and Eth.)
192 etc., Slavonic E n . 7 1 8 , Jubilees 5, Test. 12 Patr. : Reuben
Philo, 1262, ed. Rlangey, Jos. Ant. i. 31 0 73 Jude 6
2 Pet. 24. Justin, Apol. 15, Clem. Hom. $13, Ciem.Alex:
Strom. 3528, Tert. De Viyg. Vel. 7, Lactantius, lnstit. 2 1 5 ,
Commodianus, Znstruct. 13.
In Ps. 291 826, Targ. has u * x h pnx ; in Job 16,
6 reads oi dyyehoc 700 @COG, and in 387 6yyehol
pov, and Targ. in both places muZdkuyyd, and in
Dan. 325 [92] 65 renders dyyPhou BeOD. T h e trans-
lation ‘sons of the angels’ (Job 387 Pesh. b’nai
muh’ki, En. 71 1) or ‘ children of the gods’ (En. 6945
1065) apparently presupposes the use of PZahim (or
Aram. Zldhin) as a designation of angels, the ‘ sons ‘
being the individuals of this class. Whether Aqnila’s
rendering, oi uioi TDY BeDv, reflects such an identification
of PL5him-Beol with angels, or a more correct appre-
hension of the original meaning, or simply the convic-
tion that the Most High can have no sons (cp Midr.
TpiiZZin, 27), cannot easily be determined. The fact
that Gen. 6 2 4 are the only passages where the Targs.
(Onk. and Jon. ) render b’ni Plihirn with b’nE rabrZbuyyd
indicates that the common significance is here forced to
yield, for dogmatic reasons, to a less natural meaning.
The same is true of Sym. oi viol TGU ~ U V ~ U T ~ I ~ T
Sam. Targ. n.&o ?>I,and Saadia hanu’l afr@, ‘ sons
of the mighty,’ ‘ t h e rulers’ or ‘nobles.’ It is also
significant that the term kZ‘Ginz, which designates the
gods as objects of worship, was transferred to the
angels (cp J o b 5 1 1515 Zech.145 Dan.414 Ps.8968
Tob. 8 15) ; in Ecclus. 452, the original seems to have
read &UJ i;nm.i (6translating o - n h with flyror), and
a similar transfer is likely to have taken place in the
case of the term ’watcher.’ If 6 is correct, in Dt.
328 (apparently a late gloss), the 5u *n seem to have
been limited in some circles to the celestial representa-
tives, or patron angels, of the different nations.
4691
SON OF GOD
At the basis of the myth in Gen. 6 1 8 lies the idea
of the physical
- _ descent of some men from divine beings
3. ofFepring[cp N EPHILIM , 5 I]. T h e famous giants
of old were regarded as sons of gods and of
of 8, god. beautiful women. This explanation was
especially resorted to in the case of great heroes of
antiquity and of kings (see 5 ) . But clans and tribes also
traced their descent from divinity through their eponym
heroes. When the Moabites are said to be the sons and
daughters of Chemosh (Nu. 21 z g ) , the Hebrew singer
used a phrase that is likely to have been employed by
the Moabites themselves to claim descent from Chemosh,
to indicate that they were his offspring in the world.
Gen. 1930-38 cannot be urged against this view. I t
probably referred originally to the descent of a pre-
Edomitish clan from its divinity Lotan (see LOT).
Edom, Esau, Ammon, Gad, Asher, and othergeniiZicia,
are. beyond a question, names of gods [cp T RIBES, 5 31.
Abram (the ‘exalted father’ of Hebron), Isaac (the
‘ smiling ’ E l of Beersheba), Jacob (the ‘ pursuing ’ El
of Shechem), Israel (the ‘ fighting’ El of Mahanaim),’
Ishmael (the a listening’ E l of Beer-lahai-roi), Jerahmeel
(the ‘pitying’ El of Rahama) and many more, can
scarcely have been other than divine figures originally.
T h e sons of these were, no doubt, once regarded as
physical descendants of gods, though the term was later
understood to designate them merely as the offspring of
eponym heroes, or as belonging to the tribes bearing
these names. However foreign to the ideas of a later
time, the conception that the Israelites descended from
YahwB himself is likely to have existed in earlier days.
When, in extant literature, Israel is called ‘son of
YahwB,‘ and the members of the people ‘sons and
daughters of Yahwk,’ this is indeed probably, in every
instance, used in a metaphorical sense (see 5 4). Never-
theless, there are indications that the sonship once as
taken more literally. Already, the connection between
Yahwes fatherhood and his creation of Israel is signifi-
cant. In the Assyrian, bunu means ‘build,’ ‘fashion,’
‘beget’ ; the same term denotes creation and pro-
creation : Dt. 338 ( ‘ t h e rock that begat thee . .. the
E l that brought thee forth ’ ) shows how closely the ideas
were related in the Hebrew mind. T h e tendency to
make the eponym heroes sons of gods and women, seen
in Greece (cp Rohde, 1 5 2 8 1 6 9 8 ) and else-
where, was evidently at one time operative in lsrael as
well. T h e original paternity of Isaac is but thinly
disguised in Gen. 1 8 1 0 8 21 18 (cp that of Samson in
Judg. 13 where mal‘ak is probably a later addition). It
is quite evident that at sanctuaries provided with
ma@ifh and ashin-m, @ d Z m and @di?5th, the simple
folk-religion cannot have left Yahwh without a consort
and children. In Ezek. 33 Yahwh marries two sisters
and begets children by them. This is an allegory.
But when even a late prophet does not hesitate to
introduce this conception as a figure of speech, it may
be reasonably supposed that an earlier time found it
only oatnral that Yahw6, as well as other gods, should
have children by graciously visiting women of his
choice. G e n . 6 1 8 shows that gods might do this
without offending the morals of the age. T h e notion
of a physical divine paternity is not incompatible with
an otherwise highly developed moral sense (see 5 17).
T h e very fact that in Hebrew literature Israel is
W Y ,
urimarilv the son of Yahwb and the individual Israelite
’ 4. Figurative only by virtue of his connection with
the people, indicates that the phrase
use* was once tinderstood in a literal sense,
since collective sonship is mediated through the eponym
hero. Nevertheless, the idea of physical descent has
heen so strongly suppressed that the term is practically
everywhere used figuratively, to express the love and
1 As the ‘ J o b stone’ found by Schumacher at Sheikh Sa‘d in
Hauran proves that Ramses 11. penetrated into th? E.
Jordan country, it is possible that the Israel referred to in the
Me(r)neptah inscription was a tribe having for its centre
Mahanaiin.
4692
 SON O F GOD
paternal care of Yahw&and the reverence and obedience
of Israel.
Already in Hosea 9 I the ethical significance often associated
with this metaphor comes to view when the prospect of hecom-
ing ‘sons of the living tiod’ (bni EZ &ai)by a moral reforma-
tion is held out to the Israelites. In Hosea 111 the text is
doubtful. Mt. reads ‘ out of Egypt I have called my son. @
seems to have f o y d a plural (vi>\, m i r&va ahoii). See
LOVINGKINDNESS. His children’ would refer ro the ‘sons of
Israel.’ In Is. 1 2 30 I, the Israelites are called ‘sons of Yahwk.
That the phrase was felt to he a figure of speech is evident from
Dt. 1 3 1 8 5 (‘ as a man hears [chastens] his SOIL, so Yahwb ’ ; cp
Ps. 103 13) ; hut 14 I zsserts ’ Y e are the sons of Yahvk, your
God,’ and 326 asks ‘ Is he not thy fathe? thy maker? In Jer.
3 4 Yahwk is said to he a father ; 3 19, How shall I place thee
among sons,’ means ‘ make thee a son ’ (see Duhm, /ereinin, p.
vi) consequently contains the idea of adoption. The promise,
‘I’shall be a father to Israel, and Ephraim shal! he my first-
horn’ is given in Jer. 31 9. Similarly Ex. 4 22, My son, my
first-horn is Israel.’ In Is. 63 16, the first-horn of YahwS is em-
phasised,’in contrast with the neglect of the people by Abraham
and Israel ; the cult of these heroes brings no relief. Cp also
‘ our father,’ Is. 64 8 [7]. Mal. 1 6 assumes that Yahwe is con-
stantly represented by the people as a father. Mal. 2 10-16 has
suffered much corruption by intentional alteration and by
accident [see C r i f . Bib.]. But v. IO clearly shows that Yahwk
is the father of the Israelites and their ancestor. In v. I T
neither @ nor Pesh. seems to have found in the text ‘and
marries the daughter of a strange god ’ ( i j j \N), ’but some
phrase which could be interpreted ‘ and walks after (or ‘ serves ’)
foreign gods.’ This may he a free rendering of \N “-2 $R ~ 2
123, ‘and enters the house of a strange god,’ but MT shows that
the idea of a woman being the daughter of her god was not
foreign to Hehrew thought (cp Nu. 21 2 Wisd. 9 7 12 21 16 IO).
In Ps.73 I j, ‘ the generation of thy chiIKren’ refers t i the Jews.
The fatherhood of God is finely expressed ‘7 the prayer, Ecclus.
23 I , beginning KJprs, r&p, ‘Lord, father. In Ecclus. 411 the
Hebrew reads plNi,y’.\Ni, ‘and God shall call thee son.’
Here sonship has an ethical quality. That is also the case in
Wisd.218 ‘if the righteous man is God‘s son, he will uphold
him’ ; wdilst in 5 j the sons of God probably are the occupants
of the celestial world, including angels and human saints (see
5 7) : in Y 7 12 21 16 IO 18 4, the sons and daughters of God are
the Israelites, and in 18 13 the pepple is said to be recognised
by the, Egyptians as ,‘God’s son. In Judith 9 4 the Jews are
God s dear children. In Enth. 6 14, they are the ‘ sons of the
only and true God,’ and in 3 Macc. 6 28 thFy are the sons of the
‘most mighty and heavenly livinz God. Eth. Enoch 62 IS
speaks of ‘his children and his elect,’ hut the passage is proh-
ably a Christian interpolation. Cp also Sib. Or. 3 702 ‘sons of
the great God ’ : Ps. Sol. 7 70, ‘sons of their God ’: 18 4, ‘as ,a
first-horn only-begotten son ; Ass. Mos. 10 27, ‘sons of God ;
Jubilees 1 15, ‘sons of God’; and 4 Ezra6 58, ‘thy people, first-
born and only-begotten.
It may be inferred from such instances that the desig-
nation of God as father in a figurative sense goes back
at least to the eighth century and was common in Israel
in the last century B . C . ; that the Israelites felt them-
selves to he sons and daughters of Yahwe because of
their connection with the holy YahwB-worshipping
people: and that here and there the thought of a
spiritual sonship based on character was reached.
Founders of states and kings in general were regarded
in antiquity as sons of gods.
Numerous examples were gathered from Greek and Roman
writers by D. F. llgen in 1795. He, however, wrongly su
posed that the basis of what he deemed simp$
6. The king. a figure of speech was the relation of the king
as pupil to the divinity as teacher. In reality,
the divine paternity was looked upon as an important fact. In
the case of a long-reigning dynasty, or one connected by
marriage with the preceding one, it was sufficient to assume a
transmission of the divine life from an original impregnation by
a god : in the case of a usurper not connected by marriage with
the previously reigning family, resort must he had to an im-
mediate divine fatherhood. Thus, the kings of Egypt were
considered a5 the sons of Re‘ by virtue of descent from him ; but
Alexander could he declared a son of Ammon Re‘ only by a
denial of Philip’s paternity, and a revelation of his birth without
a human father (Trogus in Justin, Hisf. 1111). Less promin-
ence was evidently given to this conception in Assyria; but its
existence is proved by 5 R. 2 97 where Ah:-b%ni-pal says Asicr
i l t s hanfla, ‘Ashur the god, my begetter. The Ptolemies as
su’xessorsof the Egyptian kings accepted such titles as ‘son of
Re‘,’ ‘ d b s r o i i ‘Hhiov,’ ‘son of lsis and Osiris : and some of the
Seleucidz, as successors of Alexander, also received the title
Oca; ui6s. The latter title was frequently used by the Roman
emperors as well as dims, Bs6s, and e%ihl in the East (see
Dalman, 227, and Deissmann, Bi6eZsfwdien, 1 1 ~ 8 ) .
Even in Israel the king was regarded as standing on
a higher level than ordinary men and given the name
‘ son of Yahwi.’ His quasi-divine character is already
1.50 4693
SON OF GOD
indicated in the fact that he was anointed. Originally
the pouring out of oil on his head was a sacrifice, an
act of worship. YahwB‘s anointed was recognised as
partaking of YahwB‘s sanctity, as possessed of a divine
spirit and a higher intelligence ( I S. 1 0 9 ) . It is more
likely to be a reflection of a generally prevailing opinion
than mere flattery, when the woman in 2 S. 1417 20
declares that David is like the gods in hearing what
is good and evil, and has the wisdom of the gods to
know all that is in the earth ( m ~ l ’ d kis probably a late
interpolation). How the people before the exile looked
upon their kings, cannot be determined from the literary
remains reflecting the often strongly anti-royalist spirit
of the prophets. Is. 9 6 shows that a poet in the exile
did not hesitate to predict for a child born to the royal
family (possibly a son of Jehoiachin) that he would he
called a ‘ mighty god ’ (ZZ gz’b68r). 2 S. 7 14, probably
written after the exile, as H . P. Smith has perceived.
and possibly in the days of Zerubbabel. presents the
son of David as the son of Yahnk. and significantly
predicts for him that in spite of this he will be punished
as human beings are, though not destroyed. When
kings again sat on the throne of David in the
Hasmonaean age, they naturally applied to themselves
1 this promise. Yahwk’s anointed king was his son,
born as such on the day of his coronation, whom the
nations and their rulers should obey (Ps. 2). Ac-
customed as men in Israel had been to hear their
Ptolemaic or Seleucid rulers referred to both as ‘ god ’
and as ‘ son of god,’ the two terms easily merged into each
other when applied, as they were, to the Hasmonaean
kings. In Ps.582 and 826 Pharisaic hymn-writers
scornfully designate these native rulers as ‘ gods ’
(lZ5him) and ‘ sons of God ’ (6’722 ‘ e b j n ) . There would
be no sting in this sarcasm, if they were not actually
designated as such. That this was the case is shown
by Ps. 4 5 7 J [Sf.], where a poet laureate of oneof these
princes on the occasion of a royal n-edding apostrophises
the monarch as divine. In Ps. 89 26$, 2 S. 7 ‘4 is applied
to Alexander Jannieus (so Duhm). Zech. 128 probably
also applies to the reigning family.
On the other hand, Ex. 216 229[8] d o not prove tha:
rulers were called ‘gods.’ They refer to household
gods (Eerdmans), and Targ. and Pesh. which render
‘judges’ are certainly wrong. So far as known, the
king was never regarded in Israel as literally the son
of YahwB. The underlying thought seems to have
been that the king became a ‘ son ‘ by the infusion of
his divine father’s life and intelligence.
In view of the fact that the king in Israel was called
a son of God, it is somewhat strange that there is so
little evidence of its use as a title
6. The
of the coming Messiah. There is no
passage in Jewish literature that can be confidently
dated as earlier than Christianity, in which this name
is given to the Messiah.
Enoch 1052 is probably an interpolation (so Drummond,
Charles, Dalman). 4 Ezra 7 z 8 x 13 32 37 52 149 are all doubt-
ful. The Aramaic original is lost, and the extant versions (Syr.,
Lat., Eth Ar., Arm.) have all passed through Christian hands,
and manifestly suffered changes in these very passages (see
Drummond, 2858). The Targ. to z S. 7 1 4 renders ‘like a
father’ and ‘like a son,’ and the Targ. to Ps. 2 7 ‘thou art dear
to me as a son ’ : Ps. 2 is generally referred to Israel. In Origen’s
time the Jews looked forward to the coming of God’s Messiah
but professed to find no reference in prophecy to a coming so;
of God (c. CeLFunr, 149). Only rarely (as in 6. Szkka, 152 c
and Midrash TehiZZ. 2 7) is a Messianic interpretation of Ps. 2
found. There can he little doubt that the reason for this lies in
the reaction, first against Hasmonaean pretensions, and subse-
quently a5ainst Christian exegesis. But hetween the insistencc
upon Davidic descent as a rebuke to the illegitimate line in the
Psalter of Solomon, and the emphasis upon the human character
of the Messiah ( I V O ~ O H O S it I v O ~ ~ H O Vby
) Trypho as a disavowal
of the new god, the great Messianic movements stirred many
circles in Jewry, besides the followers of Jesus, with eagerness
to discover a reference to the Messiah in every passage that lent
itself to the purpose. It therefore remains possible that the
identification of the Messiah as the son of God represents not
merely the blending of two independent convictions, but the
synonymy of two terms. Dalman objects to 6ar iZZhd as a
Messianic title, on the ground that it was not customary to
4694
 SON OF GOD
mention the name of God, as Rlk. 1461 uibs so0 cthoyqroC indi-
cates. But Mt., who, according to Dalman, alone rendered the
original idiomatic nralkzithd da -shimayyA for ‘ kingdom of
God with Baorheia si)”obpa&v, has in 26 63 vlbp so; BFOL?, an!
so also Lk.22 7 0 ; and there is no indication that ‘sons of God
was rendered otherwise than hy b’nz cizhd. Nevertheless,
6ar i&ki is not likely to have been very commonly used a s a
desigcation ,of the Messiah, and there is no absolute proof of its
use at any time.
I n Lk.2036 those that are accounted worthy of
another world a n d of being raised from the dead
,. One raised are said t o be equal t o angels a n d
’ sons of God. because they are sons of
from the dead’ the resurrection.’ According t o Rom.
1 4 Jesus *-as shown to be a son of God b y his
resurrection from the dead. The idea that the ranks
of the heavenly beings may thus be increased, is
older than the thought of a resurrection.
Heroes that are well-pleasing to the gods may he carried aloft
to be with them for ever, as Uta-napisti in the Gilgamis epic, or
Enoch and Elijah [see DELUGE, 6 17, E LIJAH, ENOCH, and cp
E TH AN , P ARADISE, 5 31. Slavonic Enoch 22 gives a fine
description of Enoch‘s reception in heaven, and his celestial
garments. Into the same company of heavenly heings men
could be brought from the subterranean realms of Shea1 when
the Mazdayasnian doctrine of a resurrection had become fAmiliar
in Israel. Even in circles where the Greek conception of
immortality prevailed the goc!ly man was supposed to take up
his abode after death k o n g the sons of God, and to obtain his
inheritance a1non.q the saints (Wisd. 5 5). It is the merit of
Barton (New WorZd, 1999, pp. 114H.) to have called attention
to this thought.
Among the Jews accessible to Greek philosophy, it
was especially Philo who prepared the way for the
Christian doctrine of the son of God b y his Logos-
*. The Logos. speculation. When he called this
Logos ‘ t h e perfect son,’ ‘ t h e first-
born son of God’ (De Vif. MOS.14; De ConJ Ling.
14 ; De Agric. 12). he did not imply that it was an
individual, a n hypostasis, a person. Yet it was in-
evitable that the term < son of G o d ’ should suggest a
mediator between God a n d the world, a celestial
personality more grandly conceived than any other
associated with the name, a n d herein lies much of its
historic importance (see 2 3 , ; ~and ~ for a description
of Philo’s Logos t h e careful studies of Jean RBville.
Soulier, Siegfried, Anathon Aall, and Grill).
T h e term ‘ son of G o d ’ (uibr &OD, ulbs TOO &o0, 6 uibs
TOO BcoO) or ‘ m y (sc. God’s) s o n ’ ( ~ 1 6 sp o u ) occurs in
t h e ‘Synoptic gospels’ 27 times, a n d the
9. The
Frn ‘ the son ’ ( b 1~16s)9 times. It will
Synoptics. e convenient to record the occurrences
in detail and to classify them.
I. ‘ Son of God ’ or ‘ my (God‘s) son ’ :--a7 times.
a. Enumeration.
M t . 5 ~ 7 4 3 6 5 g 1 4 3 3 1 6 1 6 1 ? 5 2 6 6 3 2 7 4 0 4 3 5 4 =TI times.
Mk.11 1131157971461153g = Y ,,
Lk.132 35 3 22 38 4 3 9 8 28 9 35 2270 = 9 1,
b. Analysis.
i. In three Gospels :- 3 times.
Mt. 317=Mk. l r r = L k . 322: baptism.
Mt. 175=Mk. 97=Lk. 935: transfiguration.
Mt. 2663=Mk. 1461=Lk. 2270: trial.
ii. In two Gospels : 4 times.
Mt. 2754=Mk. 1539(centurion) = once.
Mk. 57=Lk. 828 (demon) - once.
Mt. 43=Lk. 43 (temptation)
Mt. 46=Lk. 49 ,, 1 = twice.
iii. In one Gospel :-IO times.
Mk. 11 (superscription) 9 II (demon) =twice.
Mt. 59 (name of peacekakers) 1433 (after
walk on the sea), 1616 (Peter’s’confession),
2740(at thecross) 2743 (alleged quotation)=5 times.
Lk. 132 35 (annunriation), 338 (genealogy)=3 times.
2. ‘ The son ’ (6 “ids) alone : g times.
a. Enumeration.
Mt. 1127 (thrice) 2436 28 19 = 5 times.
Mk. 1332 . . . . .. = once.
Lk. lOzz(thrice)
. . . . . - - 3 times.
6. Analysis.
The three in Mt. 1127 correspond to the three in
Lk. 1022 (hymn of Jesus) = 6
Mk. 13 2 2 is eouivalent to Mt. 2426 - (not
. even the
son)- ~ = a
Mt. 28 xg @aptismal formula) has no parallel = x
% 4695
SON OF GOD
It is not sufficient, however, to consider the texts in
which the title actually occurs. Passages throwing light
Principles upon Jesus’ conception of the divine
of criticism fatherhood in general and man’s son-
shiD must also be examined. Parables
in which the term ’ s o n ’ might he regarded as referring
to Jesus, must be taken into consideration. Whenever
a reputed saying of Jesus is drawn into the discussion,
it must be tested in a retranslation into the Aramaic
dialect spoken by Jesus; a n d the same applies t o
utterances concerning him by persons to whom t h i s
Galilean speech was t h e vernacular. T h e differences
between the accounts of t h e evangelists must be ob-
served. It is not permissible t o leave out of sight the
peculiarities of the evangelists, or the influence upon
their minds of later thought and a growing tradition.
It is necessary t o bear in mind the fundamental distinc-
tion between the Greek words ascribed t o Jesus which
we possess, and the Aramaic sentences he spoke which
we can only surmise ; between the stories told for
religious edification, a n d the history often symholised
rather than described in them. Moreover, the condition
of the text must be sedulously watched.
In a ;umber of passages whose substantial genuine-
ness admits of little doubt Jesus is reported as having
used the term ‘sons of God,’ or an
ll. equivalent, of men i n such a manner as
significancet o imply a certain moral likeness to
in genuine God,
SafingB Of Whilst in Mt. 59 the thought may con-
Jesus. ceivably be that the peace-makers will be
called sons of God because they will be deemed
worthy of a share in the resurrection (Lk. 20 36 and cp D 7), more
prohabl the idea is that when the kingdom of heaven shall be
estahlded on earth, as it soon will be, they will be recognised
by virtue of their spiritual kinship to God as his true sons.
This is manifestly the case in Mt. 545, where sonship is based
on an impartial and forgiving spirit like God’s. Whether Jesus
said sons of your father who is in heaven ’ ‘ 0 ‘sons of the Most
High,’ as in the parallel asss e in Lk. 635, 1s doubtfvl. Most
probably he said ‘ sons orthe &her who is in heaven. This is
suggested by a comparison of Mt. 6 IT (6 aarbp 6 p . Z ~b Lv TO^
oCpavois) with Lk. 1113 (6 mz*p 6 66 otpavoJ, where, however,
Sin. Syr. seems to read ‘the father that is in heaven’). Mt.
apparently had a preference for the pronominal additions. But
whether N ~ or N 1 3 1 2 ~was originally used, it is significant that
Jesus did not limitI the divine paternity ayd did not exclude from
sonship those who were ‘themselves evil. The same is strongly
indicated also in the parahles,of the lost son (Lk. 15 I I ~ . : and
)
the two sons (Mt. 21 28s) whlch teach that man even when he
errs does not cease to he’the son of God and the object of his
fatherly affection. In Mt. 23 8 j 5 Jesus is speaking to the crowds
as well as to his disciples warning them not to call men Rabbi,
Ahba, and Moreh, ‘for one is your master,’ ‘one is your father,
‘one is your teacher,’ the reference being everywhere to God
(see K6hler JQX 13567f.). On the other hand in Mt. 10 20 zp
and Lk. 1S;z the disciples are addressed, and ;hose to whom
the kingdom will be given are clearly distinguished by their
character from the rest of the peo le. Even more manifest i s
this distinction in Mt. 17 2 5 8 i s kings on earth demand
tribute not of their sons but only of strangers, so the heavenly
king does not impose taxes on his sons. Those who think of
God as taxing them for the support of the temple-cult are in
reality strangers to him ; the relations of sons Lo the heavenly
father are characterised by freedom. In view of such a pro-
foundly ethical conception of sonship, and. Jesus’ attitude i,n
general, it is difficult to believe in the historical accuracy of Ius
refusal to work a miracle for a Phoenician wornan on the ground
alleged (Mt. 1521-28 Mk. 7 27-30).
T h e synoptic tradition records no utterance of Jesus.
in which he distinctlv refers to himself as a ’ son of God. ’
In‘ Mt. 2743 it is indeed said that
12*Jesus’ mocking high priests, scribes, a n d
~~~~~~~~. elders quoted him as having said : ‘ I
am a son of God.’ The onlv ground _ I
for such an assertion would be Jesus’ answer t o the high
priest’s question (Mt. 2667). But see 5 20 a n d S O N OF
M A N . § 37 (end). The taunt seems t o have been made
u p of phrases from Wisdom 216-18 (see Brandt, 209).
Of more importance would be the distinction between
‘ my father ’ and ’ your father,’ if this could be traced
back t o Jesus himself.
The Gk. text of Mt. gives the impression that Jesus said ‘my
father’ when speaking of his own God or to him whilst he said
‘your father’ when referring to the God of his hisciples or the
4696
 SON OF GOD
people, and that he taught his disciples to say 'our father,' but
did nut use this expression himself. Already a comparison
with the synoptic parallels in which the possessive pronouns are
lacking tends to raise doubts as to the integrity of the text.
The prayer Jesus taught his disciples begins in Lk. 112 with
' Father' (rrdrrp) ; and textual criticism renders the originality
of the pronoun in many instances quite uncertain. When,
furthermore, the attempt is made to recover the actual Aramaic
words used by Jesus,,the fact comes to view that in practically
all cases the original is likely to have been simply A66a (N~N).
Where the Gk. Mt. had rrardp QOV or i, rramjp QOV, Evang. Hier.
has simply Abbn in the extant passages, Mt. 1032f: 1616
1s I O 19 35 26 39; and the same is true of Lk. 2 49 10 22 etc.
If this version is made from the Greek without the aid of an
Aramaic translation, only a strongly entrenched usage can
account for the suppression of the possessive. If, as seems
probable, an earlier Aramaic gospel was consulted in the trans-
lation, the testimony is doubly significant. It is confirmed by
other remains of Palestinian Aramaic.
Jesus almost certainly said only Adba in his own
prayers as well a5 in the prayer he taught, and A66a
dZ 6ash?vzayyd, ' t h e father who is in heaven,' in re-
ferring to God. T h i s conclusion is not merely of
negative value. Positively, it indicates an exceedingly
lie-n sense of the fatherhood of God creating a true
filial attitude and a gentle feeling of brotherliness toward
men. Into the innermost recesses of his spirit we can-
not penetrate. Even if o w sources were more fruitful
and less heavily overlaid by tradition than they are,
there would still remain the unfathomed depth of an
experience colouring every characteristic thought and
deed, the indefinable quality of a rich inner life, the
mystery of a great and fruitful genius. But we are able
to draw certain inferences from the fact that the highest
moral and religious conceptions of sonship ascribed to
him find expression in utterances in which he either
speaks of men in general (Mt. 5 9 4 5 4S), or includes
himself with others (LMt.17z5$ Mk. 335). Whilst he
may have avoided such a statement as ' I a m a son of
God,' because Jar lhihri might have suggested an angel,
a translated being like Elijah, or a king, it is possible,
therefore, that the real reason was his fear lest he be
misunderstood as claiming for himself alone that relation
to the Father into which his own experience made him
so desirous that all men should enter.
How well founded such aDDrehenSiOnS would have
been may be seen from M t . i i z s J ? ( L k . 1 0 z r f . ) 2436
13. Hymnto (Mk. 1 3 3 2 ) 28 19 and also from Mt.
2133-46 (Mk. 121-12 Lk. 209-19) 222
Father and (Lk. 14 16). I n the first of these
'On'
passages the gradual growth of a
logion may be observed. T h e text presented by our
MSS with minor variations between Mt. a n d Lk. already
occurs sporadically in the second century (present tense
Justin, c. Ttyph. 100, ' knowledge of the Son first ' ;
Iren. iv. 6 1 , CZem. Recog. 247). Older than this, how-
ever, as modern critics generally recognise, is the text
found in Justin, ApoZ. 1 6 3 ; Clem. Nom. 1 7 4 1841320 ;
Marcosians in h e n . i. 203 ; Marcion in Tert. c. Marc.
2 2 7 ; k e n . ii. 6 I iv. 6 3 ; Clem.Alex. Sfrom. 7 1 8 1 ~ 9 etc.,
which reads, with unimportant variations, K a l ob&h
+w r b u rar4pa €1 p+ b uibs K a l (oirSP) rbv uibv (TLE
(4)
Y L Y & T K E L ) E l p$ b raT+p K a i O& 8iV b d b S & O K a h d $ g
(Podhqrar drroraW$ar). T h e principal differences are
that byvw occurs in place of Y L U J U K E L , that the sentence
' no one knew the Father except the Son ' precedes ' nor
any one the Son except the Father,' and that as a con-
sequence it is the son instead of the father that reveals
the son. Schmiedel (Prot. Monafshefte, 1900, p. 18)
regards this as an original utterance of Jesus and under-
stands the aorist to intimate that there was a time when
Jesus discovered that God was a father, a thought that
until then had not been present to his mind. Accord-
ing to this critic, the men who once believed in the
fatherhood of God were all dead, and among Jesus'
contemporaries no man recognised God as a father.
Having become a ' sou ' by the discovery, he naturally
looked upon himself as ' the S o n ' as long as he re-
mained alone with his conviction that God was a father.
But already Ewald (JBW,1855, p. 160) pointed out
4697
SON OF GOD
that the difference between byvw and Y L V ~ U K Ewould L not
appear in the Heb. yuda', and Dalman (233)rightly
insists that in the unvocaiised Aramaic text the parti-
ciple yrida' and perfect yida' could not be distinguished.
This difficulty would indeed be obviated if a derivative
of 731 is supposed to have been used in the original
(Bvang. H e r . has 735 in M t . ) ; but even so (aphel
perf. ) this verb would scarcely have necessitated an aorist
rather than a present tense. Klopper ( Z CC'Th., 1896.
pp, 5 0 1 8 ) and Dalman strongly urge the improbability
of the revelation of the sou through the son. Yet only
the son's knowledge of the father follows naturally the
transmission of all knowledge to the son. T h e rather
irrelevant statement that ' no one knows the son except
the father,' has the appearance of being a gloss drifting
into different places. If it is removed. the connection
is greatly improved : ' All things (that arc hidden from
the wise and disclosed to babes) have been transmitted
(Euang. Hzer. inanx) to me by the Father, and no one
knows the Father except the son and he to whom the
son is willing to make a revelation.' It is difficult,
however, to see how even such a n utterance could have
conic from the lips of Jesus. T h e alleged return of
seventy disciplcs from a journey during which they had
been engaged in exorcising demons does not furnish a
natural occasion for such a comment as this (see Bruno
Bauer, Kritik der Eu.-psch. [1891] 2266 8).T h a t
Jesus should have thought of himself as possessed of
all knowledge and regarded all other men as ignorant
of God is scarcely conceivable. Long usage had
rendered the term 'father' as a designation of God
quite familiar to the contemporaries of Jesus, and piety
had invested the name with deep spiritual significance
(see § 4). But the abbreviated title ' the son' would
probably have been as unintelligible to the Jews of
Jesus' time as it was well understood by the Christians
of the second century. Pfleiderer ( f/rchristenfhum,
4 4 5 8 sosf.) recognises the influence of Pauline ideas,
a n d Brandt (pp. 561, 576) considers Mt. 1125-30 to be
a hymn regularly constructed oftmaterial largely bor-
rowed from Ecclus. 51. Neither of these views is per-
haps capable of strict demonstration. But the underlying
conviction that this cannot he a genuine saying of Jesus
is as irresistible as the evidence of its gradual growth is
conclusive.
I n Mt. 2 4 36 (Mk. 13 32) the clause ' neither the Son '
(ob&? 6 uibr) is lacking in many MSS, and (among other
14. Son,e ancient witnesses) in the Syr.-Sin. Most
limited modern scholars reject i t Scholtcn
et o w h i e Evung. 227)maintained that
!?was also lacking in the original Mk.
Dalman (159) thinks that the original text was ' not even
the angels,' and that ' n o t even the son but the father
only ' is a later addition.
Schmiedel(2.c. 20) also regards the words in Mt. as spurious
but considers those in Mk. as genuine because they cannot havd
been engendered by reverence for Jesus, a motive that led the
editor of Mt. to omit them in copying his source. It is not
apparent why the supposed original copyist should have been
more sensitive on this point than the later interpolator of Mt.
In the first half of the second century it is not likely that any
Christian was offended by the subordination of the Son or his
limited knowledge (Scholten, Z.C.). Only the rising estimate of
Jesus can account for the place of the Son between the angels
and the Father, for the emphasis upon the fact that even he did
not know the day and the hour, and for the use of the ahbrevi-
ated title. Mk. 13 32 seems to have been added to the Apoca-
lypse of Jesus to explain either the absence of a sufficiently
exact date 01 the delay in the fulfilment of prophecy.
The third passage in which ' the Son' occurs is Mt.
28 xq. T h a t the trinitarian baDtismal formula does not
15. Baptismal go back to Jesus himself is evident a n d
recognised by all independent critics.
Acts and the Euistles show that other
Formulas were used but not this one, that the apostles
did not feel warranted to preach to the heathen without
a special revelation, and that the early church never
referred to this commandment. T h e fact that it is
s c r i b e d to Jesus after his death is also significant;
4698
 SON O F GOD
Conybeare ( Z N T W , 1901, pp. 2 7 5 8 ; Hibd. Journ.
1, 1902, pp. 1028 ) has shown that there was, as late
as in the time of Eusebius, an earlier text which read :
.+
IIopeuOdvTEs pab'VEduam m h a r b Zb'v7) T @ dvbparl
pou ' G o ye and make disciples of all nations in my
name,' and has rendered it probable that the expanded
form originated about 140 A . D . in the Old Latin texts
of Africa, that it thence crept into the Greek text a t
Rome, and finally established itself in the East during
the Nicene epoch in time to figure in all surviving
Greek codices.
How Jesus understood his peculiar relation as a son
may, according to Dalman ( Z ~ O )he , seen very clearly
from Mt. 2 1 33-46 (Mk. 12 1-12 Lk.
16. Allegory of 209-19). H e regarded himself as the
husbandmen. beloved son, or, as Gen.222 d and
Trg. suggests, ' t h e only begotten son,' entitled to the
empire of the world, but destined to be put to death.
O n the other hand, Jiilicher (GZeichnirPeden J e w ,
1899, pp. 3 8 5 8 ) after a most searching examination
of these texts comes to the conclusion that the story of
the wicked husbandmen is not a parable describing
something that might have happened in real life, but
an allegory, and that it is in no sense a n utterance of
Jesus, but the work of early Christian theology. T h e
justice of this verdict is appreciated when the marked
contrast to all genuine parables, the lack of verisimili-
tude, the assumptions contrary to fact, and the charges
based upon future conduct are duly noticed. In regard
to Mt. 222, where the king makes a marriage feast for
his son, Dalman rightly calls attention to the absence
of the son during the meal, and the fact that in the
parallel (Lk. 14 16) there is no mention of the son.
According to Lk. 132 35, the angel Gabriel announced
to Mary that the child she was to bear would be called
'" ' t h e Son of the Most 'High,' o r ' t h e
Procla- Son of God,' because the Holy Ghost
mation by would come upon her. Divine sonship
is here made dependent upon physical
voices' generation. Jesus will be called Son
of God because he is to have no human father. This
mythical conception which was widely prevalent in
antiquity (see 55 2, 5) seems t o belong to a late stratum
(cp Conybeare, Z N T W , 1902, pp. rgzj?) and is of
Gentile-Christian origin (cp Hillmann, J P T , 1891, pp.
2 3 1 8 ) . Older than it, is the idea that the Son of God
was horn as such a t the baptism. Between the reports
of the heavenly proclamation on this occasion in the
synoptics there are important differences. Whilst Mt.
317 reads ' This is my beloved Son in whom I a m well
pleased,' Mk. 1 x 1 and Lk.322 have ' T h o u art my
beloved son, in thee I a m well pleased.' It is possible,
however, that D a d c f z * Z and a large number of
patristic quotations have preserved a more original
ufbs pou €1 u6. hy3 u$p~pov
reading in Lk. 322-viz..
yqyhvv~rtd U E , ' T h o u art my son, to-day I have
begotten thee.' T h e generation of the Son of God is
in this case accomplished by the entrance of the Holy
Ghost as a dove. This earlier myth seems to have
been supplanted by that of the Virgin birth. The
announcement of the heavenly voice a t the transfigura-
tion (Mt. 1 7 5 Mk. 9 7 Lk. 935) was then transferred to
the baptism. ( C p Holtzmann, Die xvnoptiRer.(")85. )
The early church was convinced that not only
heaven hut also hell knew the secret of Tesus' divine
ls. Proclama- sonship. Demons repeatedly pro-
claimed him the Son of God, Mk. 311
tion by 57 (Lk. 828 : cp also Mk. 1 2 7 ) ; and
demons' Satan himself nsed his knowledge of
this fact to lead him into temptation (Mt. 4 3 6 : c i Lk.
439). T o accept the opinion of the evangelists as to
the supernatural knowledge and activity of demons is
no longer possible.
It is assumed by many critics that the demoniacs actually
spoke such words as are ascribed to them, and that they them-
selves, as well as their reporters, were only mistaken in their
interpretation of mental and nervous disorders. Being thrown
4699
SON O F GOD
into great excitement by the extraordinary impression of Jesus'
personality, these sufferers gave voice to their own or the general
feeling that Jesus was the Messiah. But on this theory it
cannot be explained why men excited to madness by the political
situation should have avoided the one unmistakable Messianic
title, ' Son of David,' and employed a term that cannot be proved
to have been then used, nor why, of all me?, only the demoniacs
should proclaim him as the 'Son of God. As it is especially
Mk. who emphasizes this testimony of the demons, it is natural
t o see in it a hase of his general conception of Jesus' life and
character. $e had to reckon with a strongly entrenched
tradition to the effect that Jesus had not proclaimed himself as
the Messiah. From the premises of his Christian faith he could
only conclude that Jesus had then concealed his Messiahship
and the divine nature which he associated with it. Such a fact
might he hidden from men, hut not from demons. They must
have known, in spite of his disguise, the divine Son by whom
they were to he judged. It is particularly the merit of Wrede
(DasMessiasgelteimniss, 1go1, pp. 7 3 8 ) to havecalled attention
to this aspect of the case. l h e story of the temptation
should he considered from the same point of view. [Cp TEMP-
TATION, 51 4-6.1
As no objective reality can be ascribed to these voices
from the world of evil spirits, it is idle to inquire whether
in their reported utterances Son of God ' corresponds
t o an Aramaic 6ar ZZih& bar 'e&8n9 B'reh SZZihi, and
what meanings each of these forms may have conveyed.
T h e same conception that Jesus' divine sonship can-
19. Petrine not he known by men except by a special
confession. revelation from another world is found in
Mt. 1617. Of such a revelation there is
no hint in the accounts of Peter's confession a t
Caesarea Philippi given by Mk. (8 27-33) and Lk.
(918-22). But neither of these evangelists puts the title
' Son of G o d ' upon the lips of Peter. Mk. has simply
6 xp~urhs,Lk. 6 xp~urbsTOO 9eoO ; the latter probahly
goes back to dE&i dl-yahwe, cp I S. 247 Trg., and
Ps. Sol. 1 8 7 Xpiurbr K U ~ ~ O Uand, originally 1732, and
not to a mlf+.i d'lhihi not found elsewhere. I t is
more likely that Peter used this longer form than the
shorter one in Mk. There is no reason to doubt
either the question or the answer in the form preserved
by Mk. and Lk. Before carrying out his plan of
proclaiming the kingdom of heaven in Jerusalem, Jesus
would naturally desire to know the attitude of the
people. If Peter's description gave him some assurance
that there was no immediate danger in that direction,
the views as t o his personality cherished by his disciples
seem to have made him all the more apprehensive, and
caused him most earnestly to forbid them t o make any
such statement concerning him.
It has long been recognised that Mt. 16 17-19 is a late interpo-
lation. It may already reveal the pretensions of the Roman
bishop (Wernle Syn. Frage 192) and has been more correctly
interpreted by 'Catholic edgete; than by Protestants (Bauer,
Km'tik 36). But, apart from the macarism, the text of Mt.
has hein interpolated (cp Holtzmann, Syn.(3)257) by the addition
of the two terns 'son of Man '(see SONOF M AN , $ 39) and 'son
of the living God' (cp Hosea2 I , d o i Be05 <&WTOS). Van
Manen (Th. T,1894, p. 184) is probahly right in thinking that
Son of God' is not here a designation of the theocratic king,
but to be taken in a metaphysical sense. But to the interpolator
b ~ p ~ v r was
d r no longer a mere equivalent of ' t h e Messiah' ; it
had no doubt already assumed the same significanceas the 'Son
of God.
According to Mt. 2663 the high priest said ' I adjure
thee by the living God that thou tell us whether thou be
the Christ, the Son of God ' ; in Mk. 14 61
ao. High he simply asks a Art thou the Christ the
h.iest,s
adjusation. Son of the Blessed? ' and in Lk. 2267 the
elders of the people say ' If thou art the
Christ tell us,' and only after the reference to the Son
of Man, 'Art thou then the Son of G o d ? ' v . 70. It
is evident that according to Christian tradition Jesus
was asked by the priests whether he regarded himself
as the Messiah, and that the particular form of the
question shaped itself freely. I n Mt. and Lk. Jesus
does not commit himself; Mt.2664 reports only the
brief 2 3 ei'ras, ' Thou sayest so,' Lk. 2270 his reason for
not answering as well as his rejoinder, ' You say that I
am.' On the meaning of 2 3 errras see Thayer, / B L
1340-49; Merx, Die vier Ran. Eu. 2384. These gospels
represent a tradition according to which Jesus main-
tained his incognito before the priests as well as before
4700
 SON O F GOD
Pilate. T h e apparently earlier form of the narrative
preserved in Lk. makes no mention of false witnesses,
blasphemy, a formal sentence to death, and personal
indignities, but tells of two false charges brought against
Jesus by the priests before Pilate-viz., his forbidding to
give tribute to Cresar and his declaring that he himself
is the Christ, an anointed king. Mk. has all the addi-
tions of Mt. and, besides, takes the important step of
changing 2; &as into 'Eyb E&L ' I am.' What took
place in the pontifical residence to which Jesus had been
carried was probably as little known to his disciples as
to us. (See Brandt, 5 3 8 ; We. SKizzen, 6 [1899]
207; cp S IMON P ETER, 15.) At the time when
these accounts were elaborated, ' S o n of Man,'
( Christ,' and 'Son of G o d ' had become synonymous,
and 'Son of G o d ' was understood as ' G o d , ' so
that the blasphemy of making oneself equal with God
could be conceived of as a charge brought against
Jesus. T h e ' Son of G o d ' in Mt. 2T40 is lacking in the
parallel passage Mk. 1529f:, and the utterance is based
on Mt. 2661 (Mk. 1 4 5 8 ) , having no more historic value
than these improbable testimonies.
I n utter amazement at the miracles that accompanied
the death of Jesus, the centurion cried
21. Centurion's ' Of a truth this is the Son of God ' (or
exclamation. ' t h e son of a g o d ' ) , Mt. 2 7 5 4 (Mk.
1539). As there is no reason to-suppose that the great
darkness, the earthquake, the rending of the veil in the
temple, and the rising of the dead from their tombs
actually occurred [cp E ARTHQUAKE, 21, the occasion
for such a n exclamation did not exist. Of these miracles
Mk. mentions only the rending of the veil. Since the
centurion could not have seen this, even if it happened,
his astonishment is left without a cause. If Mk. had
thought that the centurion became convinced of the
divinity of Jesus by the fact that he died somewhat
earlier than expected, uttering a loud cry, he would
scarcely have introduced the statement as to the veil.
By his tendency to shorten the accounts that he copied,
he has here, as elsewhere, rendered his own incongruous.
Both Mt. and Mk. no doubt thought of ' Son of God '
in a Christian sense. While it is quite doubtful whether
any of the evangelists found the loud cry significant, it
is possible that a centurion accustomed to such sights
saw in the relatively speedy release from suffering a n
evidence that this political criminal was indeed a
righteous man (Lk. 2347), though Lk. thought of the
miracles as occasioning this judgment.
A critical study of the synoptic material leads inevit-
ably to the conclusion that Jesus never called himself
' t h e Son of God,' and never was
22. Origin of
addressed by that title. That he was
title in proclaimed as such by voices from
Synoptics. heaven and hell is a notion consonant
with the ideas of the time, but not of such a nature as t o
command belief at present. But this negative result
raises a question concerning the origin of the term ' Son
of God. ' Sanday regards it as certain that it was applied
to Jesus in I Thess. 1IO, ' 23 years after the ascension,'
and thinks it ' easier and more critical ' t o see in the
expression a continuation of Jesus' own teaching than
to look for its explanation in other directions. But
apart from the impossibility of proving that the epistle
quoted was written '23 years after the ascension,' by
pointing to the Pauline literature Sanday has himself
drawn the attention away from the line of direct trans-
mission of the thonghts and words of Jesus. It is indeed
in Hellenistic circles that the title as we find it applied
to Jesus is likely to have originated. There is a possi-
bility (see 6 ) that in some circles the intensified study
of ' Messianic ' prophecies during the first century A. D.
caused the term 6ar kZ6hi to be used as a title of the
Messiah. Wernle (Anfunge uns. ReZ. 295) goes too far
when he asserts that no road leads from the O T and
Rabbinism to the doctrine of the deity of Christ, as
Sanday rightly maintains. In Hasmonzean psalms
SON O F GOD
' gods ' and a sons of God ' are still synonyms and, in
language tinged with apocalyptic imagery, the reigning
kings are described both as gods ' and as ' sons of God.'
In spite of practical monotheism, the belief in the exist-
ence of gods as celestial princes or a s demons continued.
Such a phrase as 'sons of God' because sons of theresur-
rection does not reflect a specifically Christian conscious-
ness, but is likely to go back to ' Kabbinisni,' showing its
conception of the possibility of becoming a son of God in
a metaphysical sense through a resurrection. Tendencies
in the direction indicated can be pointed out, and are
natural enough, since the mental habits of the Aramaic-
speaking Jew cannot have been so radically different from
those of the Greek-speaking Jew. Nevertheless it shou'd
be admitted that we possess no direct evidence of the use
of bar &ih6 as a Messianic title.' On the other hand,
the term uIds BeoG was frequently met with in the Grreco-
Roman world a s a title of kings and a designation of
heroes born of divine fathers or translated to be with
the gods. T h e ideas associated with 066s and vi& BeoO
flowed into each other and had a metaphysical rather
than an ethical significance. T h e meaning generally
given to the term in the empire would unconsciously
colour the thought of Hellenistic Jews when they found
it employed in the Greek version of their Scriptures in
what they took to be predictions of the Messiah. T h e
titles uIds BeoO, Kdpcos, and Zw+?jp would certainly apply
as well to the coming king of Israel as to the Roman
Emperor. So f a r Jewish thought might certainly have
gone, though it cannot be strictly proved that it went.
It is not necessary to go outside the boundaries of
Jewish thought, influenced by Greek speculation, for the
ideas of an elevation into the sphere of divine life,
lhrough resurrection and ascension, the victory over
demons knowing the secrets of another world, and even
the birth of a hero without a human father, as Philo
jho\vs. I n the present state of N T criticism it is not
possible to date with accuracy the appearance of one or
another of these ideas in Christian literature; but it
may, perhaps, safely be assumed that they had all
round expression by the beginning of the second century.
In Jn. 'Son of God' (6 vi& 700 BEOF) occurs ten times.
23. Use of title and ' the Son ' fourteen times. As in
the case of the Synoptists it will be
in Fourth convenient to give the details.
Gos,,el.
I . 'Son of God ' : IO times.
1 34 : testimony of John. 10 36: OT recedent.
150 : Nathanael's confession. 114 : glorized through Lazarus
5 18 : belief in him. 11 27 : Martha's confession.
i 25 : dead hearing his voice. 19 7 : making himself God'sequal.
569: Peter's confession. 20 3r : purpose of book.
In 3 16 ' the only begotten son ' occurs, and in 17 11 'thy son.'
' The Son ' : 14 times.
2.
17 35 36 5 20 6is 23 26 640 835 36 14 13 17 I.
21 22
In 1 18 the true reading seems to be flovoyf+ e&, in 935 sbv
rlbv 700 dvepJaov ; in 134 the text is uncertain, Syr. sin. cur.
eading the chosen one of God.'
It is important to observe that d uids TOG @BOD is used
'y John, Nathanael, Peter, Martha, and the evangelist
iimself, but rarely by Jesus, whilst d ui6s is as a rule
mployed by Jesus alone. I n the ecclesiastical circles
vhose christology this gospel reflects, the longer form,
isually in addition to d X ~ ~ U T was
~ S , evidently used in
mblic confessions of faith, and the shorter form had
tlready come into vogue in theological discussions.
To this evangelist ' the Son ' was a divine being who
lad appeared in human shape. H e was ' a g b d '
Bc6s 1 I ) , ' an only-begotten g o d ' (povoyev+p B e l s
IS) who had assumed human nature, had become
lesh (114). H e was the Logos of whom Philo had
poken as ' t h e Son,' the medium of creation and
edemption. It was not blasphemy for him to claim a
itle felt to be equivalent to ' G o d , ' for he had been
ent from heaven, whilst in the Scriptures men who had
inly received oracles from heaven were called ' g o d s '
1033 f ) And he called those happy whose faith
 SON OF GOD
allowed them to say ' My Lord and my God ! ' without
having seen the evidences of his resurrection (2029).
It is no longer necessary to prove that the words put upon the
lips of Jesus in this gospel cannot have been uttered by him.
Even scholars generally distrustful of results that contravene
ecclesiastical tradition are no longer willing to maintain the
position of Schleiermacher and Neander, but freely admit 'in
this collection of sayings an element-possibly a somewhat
considerable element-that represents not so much what was
actually spoken as enlargement and comment embod ing the
experience and reflection of the growing church ' ({anday).
The critical estimate gained by the investigations of Bretsch-
neider, Strauss, Bruno Bauer, Schwegler, Baur, and Zeller was
in the main so sound that it has been adopted, even after the
severe testing by Bleek, Ewald, and Reuss, with modifications
that do not essentially affect it, not only by Hilgenfeld, Keim
Volkmar, Holtzmann, Scholten, Thoma, Pfleiderer, and Alheri
Rkville, but also by Schiirer,Jiilicher, and substantially Harnack,
whose theory of authorship and interpolations does not render it
usable as a source for the history of Jesus (Das Wesen des
Chrisfenfhvms,p. 13 ET, p. 19~3. It is significant that the
most recent investigators, Jean R&ville,Kreyenbiihl, Schmiedel,
and Grill agree in rejecting the Johannine authorship, the
authenticity of the speeches, and the various partition-theories.
That all parts of the book reveal the influence of the Philonian
Logos-idea was never so fully demonstrated as by RBville and
Grill; however mistaken his theory of authorship may be,
Kreyenbiihl has exhibited, even more clearly than Baur, the
gnostic affinities of the gospel ; Schmiedel has shown convinc-
ingly how essentially correct the interpretation of the external
evidence by the Tiibingen school was; and by setting Jn.'s
central idea, the incarnation, against the background of Oriental
s eculation, Grill has not only used the comparative method
&at henceforth must find a wider application in all biblical
interpretation, but also revealed the legitimacy of that process
of thought which led from the Fourth Gospel to the S~mbolum
Nicrenunz.
24' In Epp. In the epistolary literature of the N T the
and Rev' following
- facts are noticeable.
'Son of God ' occurs in I and 2 Tn. . . = 17 times
'the Son' occurs in I and 2 Jn.-
Neither occurs in-
. . . = 8 ,,
( a ) Jas. Jude I Pet. 3 Jn. or (except in an allusion to the
transfiguration) 2 Pet.
(b) in Phil. Philem. z Thess. I Tim. 2 Tim. and Titus.
I n the remaining epistles the occurrences are :
I. 'Son of God'
Rom.1349510832932 . . . . . = 7times
GaLlr6228446 . . . . . . . = 4 ,,
,,
Heb.1541q66731029 . . ,. .
I Cor. 1 9 z Cor. 119 Eph. 4 13 Col. 113 I Thess. 1 IO = 5
= 5 ,,
2. 'the Son'
. . .. .. .. ..
I Cor. 15 28 = once
Heb.1~83658728. = 5times
The come tion in the Johannine epistles is the same as in the
fourth gospef Rom. 1 3 is especially important as showing
the idea of divine sonship based on the resurrection. Connected
with this metaphysical sense of the term is the conception that
men are not in themselves sons of God but may become such by
endowment with divine spirit, 8 6 . In Gal. 116 the mani-
festation of the risen Son of God is describdd as an inner process.
In Epb. and Col. which show the influence of the Logos
speculation, the Son 'is the pre-existent medium of creation : the
phrase 'first-born of all creation,' Col. 11 5 , should not be inter-
preted so as to exclude priority (Sanday), since ' he is before all
things,' as v. 17 shows. The closest affinity tn the fourth
gospel is found in Heb where 'the Son' is an essentially divine
being subordinate to ';he Most High, but higher than 'the
heavehy man ' of I Cor. 15. Schenkel finely observed the
embarrassment the author felt at the thought of this, being
learning obedience or suffering 'though he was a Son. The
Alexandrian exegesis of chap. 1 shows with what peculiar
material the road from the OT was paved.
T h e term does not occur in Acts, and Sanday rightly
decides against TU% BeoO being interpreted as an
equivalent. In Rev. 2 18 the Christ is called ' Son of
God. T h e strangely composite christology of this book
may be connected with its composite authorship and
the transmission of its text.
A careful examination of the gospels tends to produce
26.- Ristori- the conviction that Jesus never assumed
the title ' Son of God ' either to designate
si@fi- himself as the expected king of Israel or
Of to intimate that his nature was unlike
that of other men, but that he spoke of men in general
4703
SON OF GOD
as ' t h e sons of God ' and of God as their father, and
also used the expression as a mark of distinction for
those whose character resembled God's, who by their
filial relation were freed from bondage to legal enact-
ments concerning the cult, whose spirit and conduct
established peace in the world, and who would be
accounted worthy of a share in the resurrection from the
dead. From a modern point of view such an attitude
no doubt appears ethically more valuable than the loftiest
claim of kingship or of godhood. The personality which
historical criticism is able to discover behind the gospel
records is not only more real but more ideal than the
portrait the evangelists produced. Nevertheless the
bestowal upon Jesus of a title he did not claim and
probably could not have understood marked a step
forward. When he was lifted np from earth and made
a god, he drew all men unto himself. For him they
abandoned the gods of their fathers, and out of his ful-
ness they all received some measure of grace and truth.
I t may be questioned whether without this deification it
would have become historically possible for him to
dispense his spiritual gifts through the ages. I t was far
easier for men outside of Jewry to look upon the bearer
to them of such treasures of life as a god than as a mere
man ; and even Hellenistic Jews must translate his
personality into the supernatural to derive from it such
spiritual benefits as their education had prepared them
to receive. There is a n element of truth in Wernle's
keen observatioi that ' christological dogma did not
arise through a gradual increase bui, on the contrary,
through Jewish and anti-gnostic reduction of the
popular faith' (Anfunge, 295). I t was after all the
true humanity of the Son of God that bore off the
victory at Nicza. But it should not be denied that
there had been a gradual growth into that well-balanced
conception which, it would seem, was best adapted to
guard the spiritual interests involved. As the cecumenic
creeds were the corollaries of that conception of ' t h e
Son of God' who is himself ' God ' which comes distinctly
to view in the fourth gospel, so this itself is the product of
a long development of thought in Israel as well as in
Greece, and among the Aryans of India and Persia.
T h e contribution of Jesus himself to this development
was the indelible impression of his personality. His
own thought was too grand in its simplicity for the
world to appreciate. That it means more to be a child
of God in the sense in which Jesus used the term
than to be the Son defined by the Nicene creed, is a
truth still hidden from many who are wise and prudent.
The title has been discussed with more or less fulness in
numerous commentaries, OT and NT theologies, critiques
of the gospels, and lives of Jesus. Among the
26. Literature. latter those of Strauss, Neander, Keim, Hase,
Schenkel, Beyschlag, Weiss, and A. Reville
should he mentioned. The following works deal with various
aspects of the question. Ilgen, ' De notione tituli filii dei' in
Paulus, Memorabilien, 7, 1795,pp. 119-198 ; Bertholdt, Christo-
lo-ia J u & o ~ m , 1811 ; Colani, J&us Christ et les croyances
w.&aniynes de son temps, 1864 ; Wittichen, Die Idee Gotfcs
a h des Vafevs, 1865 ; Vernes, Histoire des id& messianiques,
;Drummond TheJewish Messiah, 7877 ; Schenkel, article
Sohn Gottes' in 'Bi6eilexihon,1675 ; Stanton, The Jewish and
fhe Christian Messiah, 1886 ; Wendt, Die Lehre J e w , 1890 ;
Baldensperger, Das Selbsfbewusstsein Jesu, 1892 ; Briggs,
The Mzssihh of the Gospels, 1897 ; Paul, Vonfellungen von
.
Messias 7895 Brandt, Evangelische Geschichfe 1893; Thoma,
Grnesis b s J~hannes-Ei,anRe(iums,1882 ; Pfleiderer, Urchris-
fenthum, 1887 ; Jean Rkville, L e Quafn2sne E v a w ' t e , 1901 ;
Kreyenbiihl, Das Evangelium der Wahrheif, 1900; Grill,
Untersuchungen #beer die E n t s i e h u q d. vierten Evangelinns
del
.
rgoz Holtzmann Neufestamedliche Theologie,1897 ; Schmie)
b o t . Monat&f?e, ~ p p. 13;, Dalman, Die Woyte Iesu,
1868 ; Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimnis, 1901 : Rose, Fils de
l'homme et fils de dien' in R N u e diblique, 1900, pp. 1 6 9 3;
Schmidt, Son of Man and .Ton ofGod in Modern Theology (in
press) ; Stevens, The Teach& ofJesus, 1901. N. s.
4704