‘I’ABERAH
Rezin himself, who is surely the chief speaker in Is. 7 5f.
Marti, however, suggests that the name of the father of
Rezin’s nominee may have been Tdhe’el or ”abi’el, so
that he would have b,een a Judahite (but see T OBIAH) ; primarily, places of meeting for the community; they
he declines, however, to speak positively. If, however,
theview referred to elsewhere ( REZIN,TIGLATH-PILESER)(see TEMPLE, 1 I ). So also the tabernacle (see below,
he correct, and the invaders of Judah were Rezin (Rezon),
king of Aram, and Pir’Hm(?),king of Ishmael, it becomes
at once probable that the title of the pretender’s father
was Ben-TBbal, T UBAL ( q . v . ) being an ethnic name of
the N. Arabian border-land. According to this view,
the invasion was from the S., and the news brought to
Ahaz may have e n ‘Aram has encamped against
Ephron ’ ; Ephron (jiisy), corrupted in Is. (2.c.) into
‘ Ephraim’ ( O T ~ D N )was
, the name of a town of Jerahmeel
which became Judahite, according to z Ch. 13x9, under
king Abijah ; it may also have been Judahite under Ahaz,
and if so have been on the frontier of Judahite territory
towards the S. There are parallels enough in corrupt
passages elsewhere to warrant our reading in Is. 7 6 ,
‘Let us go up against Jerusalem ... and let us appoint
a king in the midst of it, namely, the son of Tubal (the tables of the law and the whole expression the tent in which
Tubalite). ’
2. A Persian official in Samaria, Ezra47, who in
I Esd. 216 is called Tabellius ( T U ~ ~[BAL]). U~OS
is very possible to read the name -$y, ‘ Tubalite ’ (Le.,
a man of the N. Arabian Tubal). This is connected
.with a critical theory on the original narratives in Ezra,
for which see Crit. Bib. It involves holding Shobal
(Gen. 3820, etc.) to be the original of Bishlam, and
perhaps Ramathi ( I Ch. 2727) of Mithredath in the same
passage, the present readings being due to a later editor.
T. K. C.
TABEBAH (;I?vqq,‘burning’ of RVmg.;€MITYPIC-
MOC [RAFL]), a locality in the wilderness of Paran
(presumably near Kibroth-hattaavah), which is said to
have derived its name from the ‘ burning’ which took
place there (Nu. 11:: Dt. 9 z z t ) . See KIBROTH-HAT- tion proceeds to attempt to form for himself a definite
TAAVAH, WANDERIXGS, §§ 7, IO.
TABERNACLE
Traditional view (B I). Symbolism (8 9).
Descri tion in P (& 2). Unhistorical character of re-
The tagernacle: its wall!j($3). cord (s IO).
Its coverings ($4). Impossible in the wilderness
Curtains (0 5). (I 11).
Court (8 6). Sacred tent in E ( 8 12).
Furniture ($ 7). Tabernacle non -existent in
Significance of tabernacle in historical times ($ 13).
P (0 8). Literature (8 14).
According to the traditional view, which goes as far
hack as to P. and even to the period of the exile. the
1. Traditional temple in Jerusalem had its prototype
in the portable sanctuary-the taber-
view’ nacle-set UD in the wilderness by
Moses. I n accordance with directions received oh
Mount Sinai (Ex. 2 6 1 8 , P ) he constructed for Yahwk
and the ark a sumptuous tent which accompanied the
Israelites as their only sanctuary during their forty
years‘ wandering in the wilderness. Though never
anything but a ‘tent,’ a provisional and temporary
house of God, designed for the journey from Sinai to
Palestine. it continued long after the settlement in
Canaan to be Israel’s sole legitimate sanctuary-set
up, now here now there. in various parts of Palestine
until at last Solomon built his temple, to which the
ark of Yahwk was firlally transferred.
The most usual designation for this tabernacle in P is
’Melmci‘&f(i@ioi k ; e.g., Ex. 2721 2843 2 9 4 X O J , etc. ;
see ASSEMBLY, z ; col. 346). According to Ex. 29423
Nu. 1719[4] this expression denotes the tabernacle as
the place where YahwB meets with Moses and the people
and communicates io Moses from the kapph-eih (see
~ ~ E R CS YEAT ) between the cherubim his messages
to the children of Israel. On this view the usual inter-
pretation of the exFlression as meaning ‘ tabernacle of
4861
TABERNACLE
the assembly’ or ‘ tabernacle of the congregation ’
(Biihr, 1136f:, Ewald, 168) is incorrect ; moreover in
point of fact the sanctuaries of the Semites never were,
were places where the deity dwelt and revealed himself
$8).
The tabernacle is expressly spoken of (Lev. 174 [cp 1531 mg.
‘tabernacle’], Nu. 16 9 19 13 31 203047 Josh. 22 ‘9) as miSkan
Ykwk (nl? ]?h)-a phrase which on the other hand, it is true,
is also used to designate the holy of holies, the dwelling place
proper of the deity as distinguished from the rest of the structure
(Ex. 26 I 6f: 35 TI 36 13f: 3933f: 40 igf: Nu. 3 25 ; cp also Ex.
3932 402 6 29). Another name for the tabernacle is * 6 h ~ l
h&-%dritk(n!pp 57k ; Nu. 9 15 17 22 f: 17AI 182), or nriSKan
hi‘ZdriU(nlp9 pe;; E x . 3 8 ~ 1Nu.150 53 1011), ‘tabernacle’
or ‘dwelling place’ of the ‘testimony‘ or ‘witness’ (cp
ARK OF THE COVENANT, 5 3). This after the analogy of ‘BhzC
m&d is taken by Riehm and others as meaning ‘the dwelling-
place where God hears witness to himself and to his will,’ in
other words a s equivalent to ‘tent of revelation. I t seems
more probable howeixer that here as in the expression ‘ark
of the ‘Zdzith’(Ex. 2 5 2 ; 2633) the word ‘&&th means the two
the two tables aie deposited (cp @ uxqv;l TO; prnprupiw Vg.
tdemaculum iestimonii orf&deris: cp also Ex. 31 18 34 &).I
The details of the tabernacle and its furniture have
It been preserved to us in two-fold form-once in the form
a. Description of a divine instruction to Moses in
.
._
UL r.
which all the measurements and sueci-
fications to the smallest detail are
given (Ex.25 10-27~ g ) and , again in that of a narrative
relating how this instruction was carried out, when
practicallyeverything is repeated (Ex.368-3631). These
two sections belong to different strata of P.
The whole description leaves at first sight such an
impression of painstaking precision that the reader
might be tempted forthwith to take for granted its
historical truth. As soon, however, as he begins to
examine more closely, and on the basis of this descrip-
picture of what the tabernacle was, he finds that in
spite of the multitude of data supplied, or rather pre-
cisely because of their multitude, it is impossible to
arrive at any clearness on the subject. As Wellhausen
very trulyremarks (ProlCl, 353,cp E T 348): ‘without
repeating the descriptions of the tabernacle in Ex. 2 5 3
word for word, it is difficult to give an idea how circuni-
stantial it is ; we must go to the source to satisfy onr-
selves what the ‘ ’ narrator ” can do in this line. One
would imagine that he was giving specifications to
measurers for estimates or that he was writing for
weavers and cabinetmakers ; but they could not proceed
upon his information, for the incredibly matter-of-fact
statements are fancy all the same.’
The tabernacle consists of two parts : ( I ) the
’ dwelling-place‘ (miJkin), and ( 2 ) the enclosing court
3. The (bifFy).
I. The ‘ dwelling-place * is spoken of
’ in the narrative as a a tent ’ or tabernacle
its walls’ (’&el). On closer examination, however,
this accords very imperfectly with the detailed descrip-
tiom2 For the so-called ‘tent’ forms an oblong with
upright walls made of thick ‘ hoards ’ (EV, ti:?, &+e.(
1 [Other words rendered ‘ tabernacle ’ in EV, hut only in the
more general sense of that word, are : mD, sukkch, see TABER-
NACLES, FEAST o r ; $b, s&, Ps.762 ( R V w . ‘covert’), or
qb, sak, Lam. 2 6 (RVmg booth or hedge’); n?>D, sikktitk,
Am. 5 26, AV ; RV ‘Siccutb ’see CHIWN ; v~qvvj,Mt. 174 etc. ;
u r j v o r 2 Cor. 5 14 ‘ cxfvwpb Acts7 46 2 Pet. 113. See TENT.]
2 I t :s clear that ;he writer 1s at great pains to make it appear
that the structure is a tent. Only in this way can we explain
the surprising circumstance that in both cases-hoth when the
instructions are being given and when the construction is being
descrihed-he begins with the roof. Plainly he feels that the
walls, etc., as he is about to describe them, do not give the
impression of a tent. Therefore he gives to the curtains-the
roof-the place of chief importance, which of course they would
have in the case of a tent, and treats all else, the walls, etc.-as
secondary and merely as necessary accessories for the curtains
ius[ as tent-polesare.
4862
 TABERNACLE
@ urhXor, Philo and Josephus K L ~ Y ~ E ) .These boards
are each I O cubits high (thus quite rightly designated
in the Greek : ' pillars ' or ' posts '), the wall itself some-
what more, as the 'feet' (see below) of the boards
have to be added in. In all there are 48 boards, 20
on the N. and 2 0 on the S . side (the structure facing
eastward) and 8 forming the western (rear) wall. The
front has no such wall ; it is closed merely hy curtains.
The boards themselves are (as Ex. 2 6 1 6 8 expressly
states) each I* cubits broad. From this, their arrange-
ment and the thickness of each can be easily calculated.
The long side of the oblong (interior measurement) as is ini.
4 lied in Ex. 26 1 5 8 , is to he 30 cubits, and that of the rear wall
; ' .measurement also) is iocnhits. This last measure-
thiis interior
ment indeed IS not expressly given, hut it is clearly implied by
the whole context ; the holy of holies a t the west end of the
structure is conceived of as a cube of IO cubits, just as that of
the temple of Solomon is a cube of 20. This being so, the
boards of the rear wall were so placed as to make it the exterior
wall which covered the breadth of both the longitudinal walls.
The eight boards of the rear wall together made a breadth of
8 X 1 f = 1 2 cuhits: as the interior measurement was only IO
cubits there remained a difference on each side of I cubit which
could only have served to cover the ends of the side walls.
These, therefore and the rear wall also were I cubit thick (so
Bahr, Ewald Kamphausen, and others).
Holzinger it is true supposes that these dimensions (IO
cubits and 30 cubits) argmeant to be taken not as interior hut
as exterior measurements. In support of this he points to the
measurement of the curtain of goats' hair which is calculated
for a framework d 1ox1oX30 cubits. This argument holds
good, however, only if we ignore Ex. 26 IZ (Holzinger eliminates
it as a gloss) and double the curtain for 4 cubits in front whileat
the rear it comes down to the ground (4+30+10=44 cubits).
The passage jiist referred to, on the other hand, clearly reckons
11 cubits as hanging down a t the rear and z cubits in front as
doubled; thus leavlng 31 cubits to he accounted for (viz 30
cubits as length of the exterior and I cubit as thickness of rear
wall). I n Ex. 26 22, it is true, the two corner boards of the rear
wall are distinguished from the others; and from this the
inference has been drawn that theywereof slenderer pro ortions
and thus the hoards altogether thinner than has been catulated
above (so, for example, already Josephns, who gives their
thickness as half a cubit). The motive for this is manifest ; a
structure formed of hoards z ft. 7 in. broad and 20.67 in. thick can
no longer in fairness be called a tent; heams of such a size are
no longer mere sup orts for a curtain roof; they are substantial
walls, and it is also?mrd to say where in the wilderness trees
capable of yielding such massive timber are to be found. Hence
the pains taken in the apologetic interest to reduce the heams.
Thus, for exam le, Knobel cites Ezek.276 where the same
expression KPrpspis used for panelling (EV RVmg. 'deck'),
thus plain19 indicating thin hoards, not {hick heams.
already observed, however, the writer's manifest object is to
make the structure appear as a tent and therefore he may very
well have deliberately chosen thik word even although (or
rather because) it elsewhere means only 'plank.' Keil maintains
that the interpreter has no reason for magnifying. mere planks
into colossal beams such as can neither he obtained from the
acacia tree nor be transported on wheels in the wilderness.
Nevertheless there is no getting past the fact that in Ex.
2G 158. i t is expressly stated of all the boards that they were
alike. The text of Ex. 2G 2 2 8 , however, is hopelessly corrupt
and unintelligible. The numerous attempts a t explanation that
have been made a t various times cannot he discussed here;
some of them are in the highest degree artificial, as for example
that of Riehm(1f lV5,s.u. 'Stiftshiitte,' p. 1578 6). Cp, further,
Dillmann and Holzinger, ad lor. : also Kiggenhach, 23 &,
Keil, 85f: [Starting from Stade's study of the construction of
Solomon's lavers ( I K. 7 2 8 8 ) in Z A T W ,1901, pp. 1 . + 5 8 where
nil; and m ? w are shown to have had the technical sense of
' stays ' and ' cross-rails ' respectively, Prof. Kennedy holds that
the the of P-which is found elsewhere only in Ezek. 276 in
the sense of ' panel'-is ' a frame of wood, such as builders '7
all countries have employed in the construction of light walls.
He renders 7m. 1 5 8 thus taking the parenthesis last : 'And
thou shalt make the frades for the dwelling of acacia wood,
standing up, two uprights for each frame, joined to each other
b y cross-rails-ten cubits thf height and a cubit and a half the
breadth of the single frame. The third dimension is not given,
because a frame has, strictly speaking, no thickness.]
Further, all the boards are uniformly furnished each
with two nil;, ydditk (EV ' tenons '), which are con-
nected with one another by a slip of wood (Ex. 26 16f: ).
Josephns understands by the expression 'pivots' ( u ~ p 6 -
q5ry-y~~)at the foot of each board, and this is not
1 [It is assumed throughout this article that the longer cubit
of 20'67 in. i5 meant. see WEIGHTS A N D MEAWRES$ 1.1
3 So also A. R. S: Kennedy, 'Tabernacle,' in Haitings' DB
4661a.
4863
TABERNACLE
improbably correct. For according to Ex. 2619 two
bases (mTt, ddznim, E V 'sockets,' pdaets) are pro-
vided in each case for the two pivots. They are of
silver, and each weighs a talent (95 lbs.) ; Ex. 3827.1
Interpreters differ widely as to the purpose and the
form of these sockets. The most natural view seems to
be that of Josephus, according to which the tenons and
sockets were placed at the lower edge of the boards in
such a way that the function of the tenons was to con-
nect the boards with the sockets. For throughout the
whole description 110 word is said as to the manner in
which the boards were set up on or, as it may be,
fastened into the ground. As to this, some interpreters
think of the sockets as having been wedge-shaped and
as being driven into the ground, the boards then being
fitted into them by means of the tenons. Against such
an explanation, however, must be urged the light weight
rf the silver ; 95 Ibs. of that metal (if the text be correct)
are not enough for a wedge large enough to carry a
pillar having a cross section of 30 x 20 in. and weighing
something like half a ton. Moreover the use of silver
for any such purpose at all would be very odd ; silver
and gold after all are best applied for the decoration of
a structure and are not usually buried under ground.
Other interpreters accordingly take the meaning to be
that theydu'ith (tenons), were designed for driving into
the ground and that the iddnim were merely quite
shallow projecting bases of the boards through which the
pivots passed. But not even thus is the object of fixing
the boards in position attained, for simple pivots would
have been insufficient, and the boards would have had
to be driven into the ground (see below). Thus we are
shut up to the view that the iddnim were quite shallow
bases of the boards serving more for ornament than for
stability. By the pivots in that case these bases were
attached to the boards. It will be enough merely to
mention here the quite different explanation of Kiehm
( H W B , S . U . ' Stiftshiiue,' 1578J) according to which
each board consisted of two pieces which were held
together by the tenons at the sides and by the feet
below.
These boards were attached to one another by cross
bars (EV ' bars ' ; n y i x , deii&m). Each board had
As
3n its outer side golden': rings ' (E\' ; nip+ &266i'5tk),2
through which were passed strong bars of acacia wood.
To be precise, there were five such bars on each side
:Ex. 3 6 3 1 8 ) . Themiddle bar, half-way up the boards,3
ran all the way along and thus was in the case of the
rear wall 12 cubits long, and in the case of each of the
Jther two walls 30 cubits, or, let us say, 31 cubits, since
ioubtless we may safely assume that the boards of the
rear wall which covered the ends of the longer walls,
and thus the rear wall as a whole, were connected with
the longer walls by these crossbars. From the state-
ment about the middle bar that it went right along we
must conclude that this was not the case with the others.
These, accordingly, were shorter and we shall be jcsti-
lied perhaps in supposing that each bar joined together
only one half of the total number of boards, and thus
that each individual board had only three rings and
xrs. The position of the bars as given in the figure in
Riehm ( N W B 1579)is derived from the consideration
:hat the narrator plainly has it in his mind that five bars
;odd be at once distinguished by simple inspection,
which would not so readily he the case if the upper and
1 [This passage, however, belongs to a very late addition to
P based on the census in Num'hers.]
2' I t is not indeed expressly said in the text that the bars were
upon the outer side: but this is the most natural and likely
jupposition. Ewald, however, amongst others, thinks of the
rings and bars a s on the inner side.
3 Riggenbach and others take Ex.2628 as meaning that the
middle bar went through the interior of the hoards themselves
and not through rings, hut such a construction can hardly be
put upon the expression o , w y g qina, apart from the improh-
ability of the whole idea.
4864
 TABERNACLE
lower bars had each i'un at a uniform level and each
contiguous with the other.
Finally, the boards and bars are, according to Ex.
2 6 2 9 8 , overlaid with gold, that is to say, with thiu
gold plate so that the inner aud outer surface of the
structure was golden.!'
These walls formed a framework for the coverings-
the roof, which, as already observed, was regarded
by the narrator as the main thing, the
4. The essential part of the structure, as indeed it
coverings.
would be in the case of an actual tent. It
has four coverings, laid successively the one upon the
other.
( I ) The innermost was of costly linen. It is de-
scribed (Ex. 26 18 ) as the work of the cunning workman
(ma'&% &7.%), of fine-twined linen ( E ; see L INEN . 7)
violet purple and red ipuple (tZMZeth and argdfmin;see
COLOURS, 5 IS. P URPLE ) and scarlet (tiM'atlr &ini;
see COLOURS, § 14,S CARLET ). Cherubim were woven
into it. How the c~doiuswere applied we are not
more precisely. informed. W e can imagine either a
patterned textile in four colours with inwoven cherubim
or a white texture with cherubim inwoven in three
colours. The latter a.ppears the more likely supposition.
The curtain of the enclosing wall of the court was also
white (see below). The whole covering was made up
of ten separate ' curtains ' (EV ; yZrf*Cth); each of these
strips was 28 cubits long and 4 cubits broad, and five
of them were joined side by side to form one large
covering. No particulars are given as to the mode of
their attachment. The two large coverings thus com-
posed, 28 cubits long and 20 cubits wide, had each of
them along one of ihe longer sides fifty loops ' (EV ;
ZziLiZh) of violet purple so placed that each of the loops
was opposite a loop on the other curtain. In these loops
were inserted fifty golden ' clasps ' (RV, AV ' taches ' ;
o'pmp, &Mrim), by means of which the two large cover-
ings were held t ~ g e t h e r . ~The whole of the great cover-
ing thus made up, 28 cubits by 40, was then laid over
the wooden framework. On the outer side of each of the
two longer walls it thus hung down to a distance of 8
cubits (the whole breadth of the structure, inc:luding the
thickness of the w:dls, being, as we have seen, 1 2
cubits). T o the rear, on the other hand, there were
9 cubits to spare, as of course the covering was not
allowed to overhang in front. In this position of the
covering, the joining of its two great sections, with its
loops and clasps, ran exactly along the top of the hang-
ing curtain which, :30 cubits from the front. separated
the holy place from the holy of holies. This arrange-
ment was certainly designed. Nothing is anywhere
said as to any special attachment of this great covering
to the walls; nor indeed was any such attachment
required, its own weight combined with that of the two
others superimposed upon it being amply sufficient to
keep it in position. This inner covering constitutes the
miJhin properly so-called, the wooden walls being
regarded merely as supports for i t : and we find it
accordingly in one place (Ex. 26 1 3 ) expressly so called.
a. Kurz Keil Bahr, and others(inc1uding Holzinger) take it
that this cbverhg hung down on the inner side of the stkctnre,
covenn the wall as with a hanging of tapestry. The reason
grimarify alleged for ihis opinion-that otherwise the cherubs
etween the wall and the hair-covering would not have been
shown-disappears on the assumption we propose to make that
the hair-covering w2s drawn out (see below). Two other
reasons, adduced by Holzinger, carry more weight. (i.) In the
1 The circumstance that the middle bar ran right along and
thus must have heen 31 cubits in lengtb naturally caused diffi-
culty from very early times, and Josephus accordingly represents
it as having heen made up of several lengths of 5 cubits apiece,
which were screwed together.
2 Perhaps we ought with Holdnger to regard 3. zg as being
in the main a gloss ; in Nu. 4 careful packing of the gold-plated
objects is enjoined, and this would certainly not he easy in the
case of the boards of the tabernacle. Yet an oversight such as
thic, on the part of the narrator, is not difficult to imagine.
:I Schick's suppositim, that one curtain had loops and clasps,
is contrary to the 1anp;uage of the text.
4865
TABERNACLE
first place he urges that the fine linen fabric would have taken
damagc if stretched over the wooden wall in contact with the
rough covering of goats' hair, would have been torn by the
nails and so forth. As against this, however it has to he
poin$d put that the whole structure is a &eation of the
imagination, and that in any case the author ha5 not thought
out the details with such practicality and minuteness as
criticism of this kind would imply. (ii.) Holzinger's other reason
is that, in Nu. 45, when the tabernacle is being removed it is
represented that the byssus covering Cali he applied as a cover-
ing for the ark without more ado ; this certainly could be done
most easily if it hung wholly within. The fact however, that
in striking an actual tent the first thing to he done is to take
down the tent covering, is of course one that does not need
to be particularly emphasised; and the im lied oversight of
the narrator thus becomes intelligible. d. On b o t h e r side there
are preponderating considerations against the theory that the
covering hung within. (i.) In the first place, had it done so, this
would have rendered necessary special arrangements for the
attachment of the covering to the upper edge of the wooden
walls, but of any such, no mention is anywhere made. (ii.)
Further, in the case supposed, the covering would have hung
down g cubits on each of the side walls, and as many as IO on
the hinder wall thus resting on the ground-an inequality which
in combination) with the great rotruding cornerpieces, would
have greatly disfigured the Hog of Holies. (iii.) Finally, in
Ex. 26 I Z ~ : it is expressly said that the tent-covering pro er
which lay above this covenng overlapped it in all directions ; gut
this is meaningless unless the inner coveriug also hung down
the outside of the wooden walls. This last passage, it is true
is regarded by Holzinger as a gioss ; it shows, however, in an;
case a t least that from a very early date this linen covering was
thought of as an external hanging. Nor is it by any means
necessary to treat the verses as a gloss. For on any construction
it is impossible to give precision and accuracy to the descrip-
tion (see below). For all which reasons the majority of modern
interpreters (Dillmann, Riehm, Nowack, Kennedy, and others)
adopt the view that the covering was an external one. On
this view, let it be added, the general effect was not impaired
by the inequality of the hanging on the side walls (6 cubits),
a s compared with the hinder wall (9 cubits), nor yet by the
corner folds coming down to the ground with z cubits to spare.
(2) Above this inner covering came, as a second
'roof,' a real tent covering (Ex. 2 6 7 8 ) like those in
ordinary use, made of black or brown goats' hair,I a
material that quickly felts in rain and allows no moisture
to pass through. This covering is also spoken of,
absolutely, as ' t h e tent.' Like the other, it also,
naturally, is made up of separate strips ; of which there
are eleven, each of them 30 cubits by 4. Of these
eleven, five and six respectively are fastened together so
as to form two larger coverings. Uniformly uith the
linen covering both parts of the goats' hair covering
have each on the longer side fifty loops exactly opposite
one another and are fastened together by clasps ; only
here the clasps are made of copper-a less noble metal.
The material and colour of the loops are not specified.
It will be observed that if a covering of these dimensions
were to be laid over the linen covering, it would overlap
it all round by a cubit, and this is expressly stated
in Ex. 26 13. On the hinder wall, on the other hand,
the overlapping part was 2 cubits longer than the linen
covering. For the hair covering was so adjusted that
of the eleventh (extra) breadth of 4 cubits only the half
hung over the back of the tabernacle (Ex. 2 6 1 z ) , that is
to say, overlapped the linen covering.a The extra
portion over the entrance in front, 2 cubits in width,
was not allowed to overhang but was turned back so
t!iat in this way the first strip to the front was folded
along the medial line and lay double. According to
Josephus ( A n t . iii. 6 4 ) there was thus made a sort of
gable and portal. A simpler explanation perhaps will
be that of Riehm and others, that the weight of the
loubled front strip was intended to prevent the wind
1 Biihr thinks that this covering was entirely white. The
text, however, does not say so, nor is the thing likely in itself.
Ordinary tent-coverings are black or dark-brown, often having
white stripes also (Cant. 15).
2 Holzinger (ad Loc.) it is true, holds this reckoning which
brings out an excess to be a mistake and considers 26 12 to be a
!loss. The mistake arises according to him out of a false
riotion as to the manner in which the linen covering was placed
[see above). [Kennedy (op. cit.) follows Holzinger in regarding
v. rz as a mistaken ass, but holds that the whole of the
eleventh curtain hung i!mbled over the edge of the roof in front
lor which he claims the support of a Jewish treatise of th;
third century.]
48%
 TABERNAGLE
from catching it too easily. Behind and at the sides
the covering was protected against this by the fastening
with tent pins (see below). The effect of the arrange-
ment was that the joinings of the linen and of the goats’-
hair coverings did not coincide ; and this is evidently
quite right. In like manner the places at which the
separate strips were fastened together by the loops and
clasps were not coincident as Bahr, and recently
Holzinger and Kennedy, erroneously have held. In
point of fact, since in the case of the goats’-hair covering
the larger portion (of six strips) was put in front, the
joining came to be over the holy of holies, 2 cubits
farther back than the joining of the linen covering
which as we have seen was exactly over the veil between
the holy place and the holy of holies.
T o this tent covering pertain the ‘pins’ ( E V ;
yZthZdc7th) and ‘ cords ’ (EV ; mZththririm) of which re-
curring mention is made (Ex. 27 19 35 18 38 20 31 3940).
The pins, unlike the ordinary wooden tent peg, are of
brass (3831). From the mention of these pins and
cords we must infer, although this is not expressly
stated, that the hair-covering did not, like the under-
covering, hang down over the outer walls, but, as
would be the case with a regular tent, was fastened by
means of ropes to the pins driven into the ground and
thus spread out slantingly. Hence also it must in all
directions have been longer than the linen covering.
By this supposition we also get over the other difficulty,
otherwise hard to meet, that at the rear this covering
hung down 11 cubits (z cubits more than the linen
covering) and thus, since the wall was only I O cubits
high, would have had one whole cubit upon the ground
unless thus drawn 0ut.l
(3) Above this tent covering were placed-obviously for a
protection from the weather-two additional coverings ; one of
rams’ skins dyed red (O’t)! nlL 3 p ) , and over this another of
porpoise skims ( D ’ f p nib ZDJ!; hut see BADGERS SKINS).
As to the dimensions of these two coverings no details are
given (see below, note I). Riehm (HWB) and others haw
supposed that they served the purpose only of a roofing, and
were not so large a s the coverings properly so-called. This:
however, cannot be deduced from the expression ‘covering
2, -17.
(30?!) nor yet from the ‘above’( 3 &’D D)of Ex. 40 19 Nu. 4 a5 ;
and all further conjectures based upon this, such as that the
roof ran to a point or to a ridge, and the like, are wholly
without solid foundation (see 5 IO end).
In front the structure was closed in, as has already
been said, not bv a wall of wood and a door, but only
The curtrtiis.by a curtain (AV ‘hanging,’ RV
‘ screen ; qgp, mEsik, Ex. 27 16,
etc.), which like the inner covering was a textile fabric
woven in four colours : white spun linen, violet purple,
red purple, and scarlet. This curtain formed a single
piece IO cubits square, and was held up by five pillars
of acacia wood. Whether the pillars were placed
between the first boards of the longer walls, or so that
the two outermost were attached to the outer corners of
these walls is not stated. The pillars have copper
bases and according to Ex. 26 are overlaid with gold ;
according to 3637, indeed, only the capitals were so.
How the curtain was fastened to these pillars is not
explained. Besides the golden pegs or ‘ hooks ’ (so
EV ; wiwim, Ex.2637). rings (EV ‘ fillets’ ; &Eziikim,
Ex.2710) are also mentioned. By these some inter-
preters (Ewald, Dillmann) understand rings which
formed a sort of garland under the capitals and thus
served for ornament. Others (e.g. Riehm) explain them
as rods which connected the hooks and on which the
curtain was hung. At all events the wdw,im are not
1 Holzinqer (ad roc.) will have it that the cords and pins
helonged to the upper coverings. In that ca%ewe should have
to think of these as having been very large. T h e circumstance
however, that the hair-covering is actually called the tent (‘6hd:
see above) permits the inference that just as in its material it
resembled an ordinary tent, so also in its use it is thought of as
such-that is to say was spread like an ordinary tent. [Kennedy,
on the other hand, finds the ‘cords’ mentioned only in the
latest strata of P, and thinks the hair-covering was pinned to
the ground all round after the manner of the Ka‘ha a t Mecca.]
4867
TABERNACLE
nails with which the curtain was nailed up-had thls
been so they would have to be pulled out every time
the tabernacle was moved-but hooks to which the
curtain was fastened somehow, with rings or otherwise.
From this outer curtain the inner, by which the
structure is divided into two parts, is distinguished only
by its greater elaboration ; the materials are the same,
but, over and above, it is adorned with cherubim, the
work of the skilled workman. The four pillars by
which this inner curtain is supported, are of acacia wood
completely overlaid with gold, and have silver bases, in
this respect differing from the pillars of the outer
apartment, which have bases of brass only, and only the
capitals overlaid with gold. This inner curtain has its
place directly underneath the row of clasps which fasten
the two portions of the linen covering together, and
thus is I O cubits distant from the hinder wall. It
divides the entire space into two apartments, the outer
and larger being 20 cubits long and the inner only half
as much, having thus the form of a cube of I O cubits.
Nothing is said as to how this curtain is hung upon the
golden nails. The curtain bears the designation of gartketh
(nzi?, Ex. 2631, AV ‘vail,’ RV ‘veil ’) or prir%efh h m m 6 s i h
(Teg?;?n$l?; Ex. 35 IO 39 34 40 ZI Nu. 4 5 , AV ‘the vail of the
covering,’ RV ‘the veil of the screen’). The meaning of the
word (@ K U T U ~ T U U ~ UV, p web?) is,uncertain. I t is generally
explained as ‘parting,’ separation. More probably it is a n
original terminus technicus used in connection with worship,
and denotes the boundary of the cella of a sanctuary (see below,
and cp Ges.-Bu. and BDB s m. -pii. also Dillmann, ad Zuc. ;
WRS, Journ. Phil. 13283 Halkvy,’MiZ. 187).
The. outer and larger apartment was ‘ the Holy’
!hak@deS, Ex. 2633, EV ‘the holy place’), the inner
the Holy of Holies’ (&&e3 hukkdariiim, Ex. 2633, EV
‘the most holy’). The latter could be entered only
once in the year on the great day of atonement, and
that by the high priest alone (Lev. 1 6 2 8 ) ; the former
was accessible to the priests only, in the discharge of
their sacred duties.
The sanctuary was surrounded by an enclosed court
IOO cubits long and so broad (Ex. 279-19 3810-20).
G. The court. The enclosure was by means of curtains
(EV ‘ hangings. +!Zri‘im) of white spun
linen (EV ‘ fine twined linen,’ FXmoSzrir). This curtain-
wall which was s cubits high was supported by pillars
of wood ; whether of acacia is not stated, but this is
probably meant. The total compass of the enclosing
wallwas(mo+ 10o+50+50=)300cubits. Thenumber
of pillars is given as 20 for each of the longer sides and
I O for each of the shorter. The view of the author
plainly is that there were sixty pillars in all at a uniform
distance from each other of 5 cubits.
The numher given for the pillars on each side is obviously
inexact if the total number is to he taken as 60. If we take t h e
statement quite literally and reckon all the pillars on each side,
then on the given data we get a total of fifty-six pillars only, for
of course each corner pillar is counted twice-nce as part of the
longer side and again as part of the shorter. I t is in this way
that Lund, Bihr, Winer and others view the matter. I t is not
very probable, however ; for in that case the distances of the
pillars from one another on the shorter sides (4p cubits) would
not he the same as those on the longer (yb” cubits). For this
reason other interpreters prefer to think that the describer in
giving his figures for each side did not count the last pillar in
each row (so Keil, Dillmann, Riehm, Nowack and others).
Thisdoubtless would be in itself quite possible if it did not so
happen that we are able to reckon exactly with regard to one
side-the eastern with the entrance-that it actually had only
ten pillars neither more nor fewer. For this side bad in the
middle fo& pillars which carried the curtain of the door, and if
we are to assume s y m e t r y at all in the structure, the door
must have been in t e middle, and thus to right and left there
must have been an equal number of pillars-namely three, as is
expressly stated in E x . 2 7 q f : Thus we shall doubtless be
justified in assuming that the author has allowed himself t q b e
guided simply hy his scheme according to which the proportion
of o :I is applied to the whole structure without caring very
minutely about details.
Each pillar has a base of bronze and a capital overlaid
with silver. The diminution in the value of the
materials in proportion to the distance from the Holy of
Holies is noteworthy. The curtains are fastened in
their places by means of silver nails which here also.
4868
 TABERNACLE
doubtless served as hooks for hanging (3817 2717). In
the same connection mention is made also of silver
hdSzi@?z).
The meaning of the word n*@? is disputed. Many under-
stand by it silver bars, or bars of wood overlaid with silver,
which reached from one pillar capital to another and rested
upon silver nails, and to them the curtains were attached either
directly or by means of rings (so Lund, Keil, Riehm, Knobel,
and others). According to Ex. 3817 19, however, the hri+im
seem to have been integral parts of the pillars themsefves, and
the expression ?ni&mYZ&im kiseph(7Dz D’??? ; Ex. 27 17 38 17,
EV, ‘ fille~edwith silver,’ can hardly mean ‘fastened with silver
crossbars. Other interpreters therefore (such as Ewald, Dill-
mann, Kautrsch Now,xck, Kennedy) understand by the
expression ‘rings’ or fillets which surrounded the pillars above,
probably a t the base of the capitals (6$aAi&ss,explained by
Hesychius as L$&s TGUcrrdhou ;Tg. &?I*?, a lacing or garland).
The E. front differed from the other sides (Ex.
27 13f: ). From each. corner only 15 cubits were pIo-
vided with an enclosing curtain, in each case having
three pillars. The middle space of twenty cubits was
left open for the entrance and had a special curtain of
violet purple and red purple; scarlet and white linen in
embroidered work (and thus exactly like the curtain a t
the entrance of the tabernacle itself) which was attached
to four pillars.1
In connection with this enclosure of the court of the
tabernacle, finally, are mentioned also tent-pins of
brass and cords ( E x 2 7 1 9 3518 302031 3940, etc.).
Here also we see accordingly that the bases of the pillars
are not designed for fixing them into the ground but
that the pillars are kept in position by pegs and ropes
which of course are applied on both sides. On another
view (Riehm, Nowack, and others), these ropes and
pegs held the curtain itself taut and therefore close to
the ground.
As for the position of the structure, the mifkrilz,
within the court we learn that the orientation of the
whole was eastward. As the altar of burnt offering
stood to the E. of the tabernacle and thus the most
characteristic acts of’ worship, the sacrifices, were per-
formed here whilst the space behind the tabernacle to
the W. was set apart for no special purpose, we must
suppose that the structure was not in the middle but
stood more to the u’. On this point we may take it
that Philo (1% &‘os. 37) hit upon the right con-
jecture when he supposed that the front of the taber-
nacle was 50 cubits from the enclosing wall facing it,
thus giving a free space of 50 cubits square before the
tabernacle.
According to P the portable sanctuary possessed
already in the times before the settlement in Palestine
7 , The the following sacred vessels :-
( I ) In the Holy of Holies stood the ark
of the covenant ( m y ? j h , ’drdnkd ‘ Z G f h )with
the mercy seat (n?iS, hupp&eth) and the cherubim. See A RK ,
MERCY SEAT, C HERUB.
(2) ‘The Holy place’ contained the tableof shewbread,
the golden candlestick and the altar of incense. The table of
shewbread according to Ex. 2635 stood on the N. side, and to it
belonged various golden dishes (EV ‘chargers,’ &i‘rirdth, Nu.
7 13&) and howls (EV ‘ spoons,’ka#fl8fh, Ex.,25q Nu. 7 14fi),
pots or cups (AV ‘covers RV ‘flasons REibflt) for the
wine and libation ‘bowls’) (so EV) for ;he’ wine offerings
(n&a&&zyybfh, Ex. 25 2 3 8 87 1 9 3 ) . For further details as to
the table see A LTAR , S 9, col. 126. Opposite the table, on the
S. side ‘of the sanctuary, stood the seven-branched golden
candlestick (EV ‘candlestickof pure gold,’ m k i r a t h hazzn‘/d6
fiihiir, Ex. 2531 2 Ch. 13 11, or halanrinin6rZh hatfih&-&h [EV
1 Here also, as in what is said as to the total number of
pitlnrs (see above), one observes that the author has not
counted, or let us say drawn his plan, with exactness. H e has
simply assumed a regular interval of 5 cubits between the
pillars, thus giving 20 cubits for 4, 15 cubits for 3. But this
does not work O u t ; the end pillaris forgotten. The whole side
requires eleven pillars ivhm such an interval is assumed ; for
the door five ought t(3 have been reckoned or at any rate for
each side of it to right and left four pillars. If we are to
calculate with precision from the data he supplies, we shall have
to reckon the distance from pillar to pillar of the doorway as
v=6$cubits and that between the pillars at each side of the
doorway as 5 cubits. [Cp Kennedy, Hastings’ BD46576.1
4869
TABERNACLE
‘the ure candlestick’], Ex. 316 39 37 Lev. 244. see CANDLE-
S T I C K ~ . As vessels pertaining f o the candlestick’are mentioned
the snuffers ( E V ‘ snuffdishes meZ&&&ihliyilanz)and little pans
(EV ‘censers’. maltbfh) on wh&h according to some interpreters
(Dillmann Khobd, and’others) k y the snuffers. according to
others (Nbwack, etc.) snuff di;hes are meant (ch Ex. 2 5 3 1 3
81 178). On the form of the candlestick see C A N D L E ~ T ;~S
on the custom of burning a light in the sanituary, cp L AMP , ar.5
see T EMPLE D 17. Between the shewbread table and thecandle-
stick facing) the entrance and pretty far back near the curtain
shuthng off the Holy of Holies stood the altHr of incense (Ex.
301 [EV ‘an altar to burn incense upon‘], miebab miktar
kitireth, m.4.hassummiin, Lev.47 [EV ‘the altar of sweet
fncense ’I, or tnizdah hazzrihi6 Ex.3938 [EV ‘the goldenaltar ’I)
with regard to which, and its ’absence from the older strata
P, see ALTAR, B 9.
( 3 ) In the court stood ’the altar’ KUT’ L~OX$Y
(i7z?fm,hammis&d&, Ex. 27 I 30 18 40 7, etc.), ‘the altar of
humt offering’ (nzidu& hd‘dZZh Ex. 3026 31 9 etc.) or ‘the
brazen altar’ (miz6ah nEhZefh, ’Ex. 3830 39 39j cn which see
A L T A R 0 ga : TEMPLE 1 18; and cp below 5 10); To thealtar
of burit offering helon&d a multitude of aicessories : ash pans
(AV ‘pans,’ RV ‘pots,’ sir8th), ‘shovels’ (EV,yd‘irn) for
clearing the altar howls (EV ‘ basons ’ nrizrn‘kah) for sprinkling
the blood, forks (EV ‘fleshhooks,’ dizlZg8ti) for the sacrificial
flesh, various sorts of ‘fire ans’ (mahtath). The vessels, like
the altar itself were all opbrass (Ex. 21 I 838 I&) as also
was the other ’main object in the court, the laver, usdd by the
priests for washing their hands and feet ; see SEA, BRAZEN.
As already mentioned above and as set forth fully
under T EMPLE (I I J ), the tabernacle, like all the sanctu-
8. significance aries of the Semites, has in the first
instance the meaning not of a meeting-
Of ~ ~ ~ place
c forl thee community or congrega-
Iy A.
tion, but of a dwelling-place of the
deity. It is the place where Yahwk dwells in the midst
of his people (Ex. 258 2945f. Lev. 1 7 4 Nu. 169, etc.).
When the tent is finished the cloud of Yahwk over-
shadows it and the glory (+ ka‘b6d) of Yahwk fills it ;
by day YahwB‘s pillar of cloud and by night his pillar of
fire overhangs it (Ex. 4037 8 ) . Thenceforward it is
invariably from the holy of holies that Yahwk speaks
to Moses. More precisely, the kupp5retk (see MEHCY
S EAT ) of the ark, beneath the cherubim, is the place
where Yahwk establishes his abode. It is from here
that Moses hears the voice of Yahwk (Nu.789).
As YahwB‘s dwelling-place the tabernacle naturally
becomes also the place where he is worshipped, for the
deity is worshipped in the place where he is (see
TEMPLE ; cp Ex. 2742 Lev. 1 3 5 ) ; and, in point of fact,
for P the tabernacle is the only legitimate place of
worship. This follows inevitably from his standpoint
throughout ; for him it is a self-evident proposition
that sacrifice can be offered and Yahwk approached
only at the place where Yahwk has his abode. So
much so that it is not found necessary in P expressly to
say so; the centralisation of the worship is for him
simply taken for granted.
Nor is the tabernacle in P the centre of the worship
merely; it lies also at the foundation of the entire
theocracy as the indispensable basis without which all
else would simply hang in the air. The instructions
regarding it constitute the main contents of the divine
revelation at Sinai. Until it has come into existence
the whole organisation of the rest of the divine common-
wealth must remain in abeyance. In this respect therc
is an element of truth in the symbolical interpreta-
tion of many writers (such as Keil), that the tabernacle
symbolises the kingdom of God, is the centre of
the theocracy where the calling of Israel to he the
people of God is realised. Its importance in this
respect-as centre of the entire theocracy-finds its
visible expression in the fact that in P the positiou
assigned to it is exactly in the centre of the camp and
of the people. The order of encampment detailed in
Nu. 2 starts from the tabernacle, immediately around
which are placed the Levites as a sort of bodyguard;
then to the E. the tribes of Judah, Issachar, Zebulun
pitch their camp : to the S . Reuben, Simeon. Gad ; to
the W. Ephraim, Manasseh, Benjamin ; to the N., Dan,
4870
 TABERNACLE
Asher, Naphtali. This too gives the order on the
march. Cp CAMP, 5 2.
In this attribute as Yahwb's dwelling-place the whole
arrangement of the tabernacle finds a ready explana-
9. S&,bolism. tion in so far as this is not to be~found
~. in its character as a portable
simply
sanctuary.
The innermost chamber is the dwelling-plare proper of the
deity, the holiest part of the entire structure. Next come the
holy place and the outer court in descending degrees of holiness,
answering to the degrees of holiness attachiiig to high p-iest
priests, andlaityin Israel, and to their respective rights of acced
to Yahws. The holy of holies can be entered by the high
priest alone, and that only once a year ; the holy place is for the
priesthood and the court for the eople. This gradation of
holiness finds expresrion also as aEeady said, in the material
equipment : in the holy of hohes everythingis of gold ; nought
save the bases of the hoards resting on the ground-though here
an exception caiinot well be justified-and the bases of the
pillan which support the dividing veil and which perhaps
stand rather in the holy place than in the holy of holies, is of
silver. In the holy place only the furniture, and particularly
those pieces which stand in the neighhourhood of the holy
of holies-table of shewbread, altar of incense, candlestick-are
provided with 'fine gold'; elsewhere it is simply ordinary gold
that is used. The exterior pillars of the entrance-curtain which
doubtless are reckoned as belonging to the court hdve but
brazen bases. Similarly in the court itself we find bras; only save
for the silver used in the nails and capitals of the pillar:. In
like manner the clasps of the goat-hair covering are of brass
whilst those of the inner covering are of gold. The interio;
covering which covers also the holy of holies, and the vail of the
holy of holies are the workmanship of cunning workmen out of
the four costly materials enumerated, with figured cherubim ; the
curtain at the door of the holy place is without cherubim and the
curtains of the conrt are simplyof white linen.
With these simple ideas, however, which find expression in
the equipment of the tabernacle in the manner just indicated,
the whole symbolism of the structure is by no means exhausted.
A symbolical interpretation of the tabernacle that reaches
much further is of ancient date. We find it already in Josephns
(Ant. iii. 7 7) and Philo (De 7 r i t . Mus. 8 147&), who interpret
the tabernacle as an image of the universe ; the holy of holies
inaccessible tomen is for them a figure of heaven, the holy place
and the court represent the ocean, the four materials out ofwhich
the coverings and curtains were woven denote the four elements,
the table of shewbread with its twelve loaves is the year with
its twelve months, and so forth. And from their time onwards
symbolical interpretation of this kind has persisted from century
to century down to our own time. In the Christian church the
typological view made its appearance very soon ; cp Justin
Martyr, Cohort. ad gent. zg ; Clem. Alex. Strum. 562 3.;
Origen, No? g i% Exod. : Theod. Mops. ad He&. 9 1:
Athanasius Orat. in assumt. Christi,' op. 25, col. 1686:
lheodoret,' Quart. 60 in Exod. ; Jeyome, ep. 64919 8 ad
Fadiolam. In modern times Bahr, Friedrich, Hengstenherg,
Keil, Kurtz, Riehm have exercised great acumen upon the
symbolical interpretation of the tabernacle and in particular
upon the symbolism of the numbers and dimensions (the
number 4 signifyingthe cosmos, IO completeness and perfection),
as also upon the significance of the colours of the coverings and
so forth. All such interpretations, however, are wanting i; any
solid basis in the OT ; nowhere does the author hint even in
the remotest way that behind these externalities he is searching
for deeper thoughts. It is hardly worth while therefore to
discuss the various attempted interpretations in any detail.
Can we now regard the structure thus described in
P as historical? X'ery great difficulties confront us in
the endeavour to do so, quite apart
10. Unhistori- from the fact that the description
cal character occurs only in P, the latest source
of record. of the Pentateuch. They have long
been urged-by Voltaire for example-and may be
summed up under the following four heads :- (I) the
imaginative character of the account itself; (2) the
physical impossibility of such a structure in the wilder-
ness ; ( 3 ) the inconsistency with the older Pentateuch
sources ; (4) the want of evidence for any such tabernacle
during historical times.
( I ) The description itself from the outset presents
great difficulties, and raises in the mind of the reader
the question whether any such structure can ever
have really existed. It has already been pointed out
how in stating the number of the pillars of the court the
narrator is plainly not describing something of which he
has any clear picture in his mind's eye, not calculating
and planning with practical preciseness, but only filling
in figures according to a scheme of his own. Yet
another point has also been noted already-that the
4871
TABERNACLE
fabric bears indeed the name of ' tent ' and the author
takes great trouble to produce in the reader's mind
the impression that the sanctuary was such in reality,
but in this effort has succeeded (and could have suc-
ceeded) but ill. Beams some 21 inches thick and 2 ft.
6 in. wide cannot be fastened together so as to form a
massive wall by means of mere tent pins, and they are
purposeless if they are intended merely as supports
for a light textile fabric. It is perfectly evident that
the model for this structure was not supplied by a
bedouin tent, a dwelling place made of (goats') hair, of
which the essential part, the roof, is spread upon three
rows of poles, usually three in each row, 5 or 6 ft. high
and closed behind by a similar fabric of hair(see T E N T ) .
On the contrary, the model was quite clearly a solid
house rendered portable only by the expedient of
breaking up the walls into separate beams. In this
respect the whole structure becomes a huge anachronism
when regarded as the workmanship of nomad hordes.
This becomes specially prominent in the description
of the altar. I n view of the ancient practice of building
altars of stone (Ex. 2 0 2 4 8 ) one reasonably asks how
the narrator could have arrived at an altar of brass,
and then one remembers that the temple of Solomon
also had such an altar. That this latter was the real
model for the altar of the tabernacle becomes still clearer
from another point of view. The altar of the tabernacle
is of acacia wood plated with brass, a construction which
in itself considered must be characterised as utterly
senseless if the explanation were not so manifest ; the
altar of Solomon must remain as it is, a brazen altar :
but it must be made portable.
A further detail may be singled out in this connection : the
whole fabric is internally pitch dark. The walls have no
windows nor openings of any kind; the roof in like manner is
unpierced. This may serve well enough in the holy of holies.
the Holy of Holies in the temple was also quite dark (seg
TEMPLE, f 7); but in the holy place it is impossible; there
the priests had their priestly duties to discharge-arrange the
shewbread, offer incense, and the like. And it will not do to
call attention to the seven-branched golden candlestick (see
CANDLESTICK, 5 I).
Finally, there is the fundamental question: Is a
structure of this kind capable of standing at all? Simply
as a technical question of architecture (see Schick, as
below, 5 14)this must be pronounced utterly impossible.
Nor is the reason difficult to perceive. The weight of
the heavy coverings and above all the pressure brought
to bear by the spreading of the tent-covering by means
of cords and pegs, must necessarily tend to make the
walls lean inwards. No opposing pressure is anywhere
present. Even if we suppose that the bars connected
the side walls with the rear wall, only the boards of
the side walls that were nearest the rear wall were thus
supported ; but in any case it was impossible that weak
bars should support the entire wall, 30 cubits long,
formed as it was of heavy beams. For this reason, and
in order to relieve the walls of the weight of the cover-
ings, Schick finds it to be absolutely indispensable to
provide the tabernacle with a sloping roof. This he
obtains by changing the middle bar into a ridge-pole,
following the English architectural authority Fergusson.
who first propounded this theory in the article ' Temple'
in Smith's DB (1863). Such a construction, however,
flatly contradicts the clear tenor of the text. The text
knows nothing of such a sloping or pointed roof-which,
furthermore, would be wholly inconsistent with the idea
of a bedouin tent.
(2) Over and above the inherent impossibility of any
such structure, account must be taken of the incidental
ll. Impossible impossibility of constructing and trans-
porting such a fabric in the wilderness.
in the T h e contrast between this sumptuous
wildernese. fabric-made of the costliest materials
of the best workmanship in wood and in metals which
the East could command-and the soil on which it is
raised, the bare wilderness: the contrast too between
this tabernacle and the peopleamongst whom it stands-
4872
 TAYBERNACLE
primitive uncivilised nomads-is too great not to have
excited doulits from a very early date as to the authen-
ticity of the account. 'lhey were raised by Voltaire,
and Colenso and Nowack (see beiow, § 11) have
elaborately shown the impossibilities involved. First
of all comes the difficulty as to the materials. According
to Ex. 3827 no fewer than 29 talents 730 shekels of
gold, 100 talents 17;'s shekels of silver and 70 talents
1400 shekels of copper are employed. T o see what
these figures mean, let the reader turn to the articles
W E I G H T S AND h{EA:jUIKES, SHEKEL. The amounts in
themselves are not very great when compared with those
which were applied iii the great Babylonian sanctuaries :
but for wilderness nomads, poor to beggary as regards
gold and silver, they are impossible. It is indeed re-
plied to this that the gold is simply the gold which had
been obtained from the Egyptians ; but such an answer
becomes impossible in the case of the timber. Where
o n Sinai the cypremes grew from which beams over
17 it. long, 2 ft. 7 in. wide, and 20 in. thick could he
obtained no one has yet been able to say.' The working
of the timber, moreover, presupposes a knowledge of
arts which nomads do not possess ; that Israel did not in
point of fact possess this knowledge is clearly shown by
the fact that even a. Solomon had to go to Phmnicia
for his temple and workmen. A word may be added
as t o the difficulties of transport. Four waggons with
six oxen apiece are assigned to the Merarites for this,
while each of the 48 beams weighs more than I O cwt.
( 3 ) Decisive on tlie question, finally, ought to he the
observation, that the older sources of the Pentateuch,
and E, know nothing of a tabernacle
la' The sacredif this sort.
tent hl E' mention of this Not only is there no
central sanctuary, but
E in point of fact has a quite different sacred tent which
completely excludes any possibility of the tabernacle
of P. The tabernacle of E is a tent which Moses
pitched outside the camp (Ex. 337 8 )and where
Yahwi: was wont to reveal himself to him in the pillar
of cloud which descended for the purpose and stood at
the door (Nu.112. 125 1410); it is on this acconnt
called '$he2 ? d i d , ' the tent of tryst.' No description
of it is given, nor is its origin spoken o f ; but part of the
old narrative has obviously been lost before Ex. 337,
in which what is now lacking was probably explained.
It appears, however, that it was very different from the
tabernacle described by the priestly narrator. It was
not in the centre of the camp but stood some distance
outside it, and it was not the seat of an elaborate
organisation of priests and guarded by a host of Levites,
but had a single minister and custodian-viz., Joshua,
who w8s not a Levite at all but Moses' attendant
(E X. 3311).
The existence of such a simple tent-sanctuary pre-
sents none of the difficulties that beset the priestly
narrative. Portable shrines were familiar to Semitic
antiquity, and tents as sanctuaries were known to the
Israelites in much later times at the high places and in
connection with irregular worships (see TENT). Such
idolatrous tabernacles were probably relics of the usages
of the nomadic Semites, and it is only natural that
Israel in its wanderings should have had the like. And
it is noteworthy that the portable chapels of the heathen
Semites were mainly used for divination (cp Jotlr-n. of
Phz'Z., 13283 f.), just as the Mosaic tabernacle is
described by the Elohist, not as a place of sacrifice
(such as the tabernacle of the Priestly Code is) but as a
place of oracle.
The heathen shrines of this sort contained portable idols or
1 [Kennedy's novel theory (see above, # 3), that the so-called
'boards' were in reality light open frames, would, of course,
meet this difficulty if it stood alone.]
2 Ezek. 16 16, 'thou didst take of thy garments and madeit
for thyself sewn high places'-i.e. shrines of curtains sewn
together ; cp Hos. 96 and Syriac &akkZ, Assyrianjaarakku, a
small chapel or shrine, from the same root as HebrewpErbketh,
the vail of the Holy of Holies.
4873
TABERNACLE
baetylia (see Selden, De Diis Syris 16) ; but what the Mosaic
tabernacle contained is not expressl; stated. The ordinary and
at first sight the easiest assumption is that the ark stood in ir
Hut neither in Deuterdnomy nor before it, are the ark and the
tabernacle ever mentioned together, and of the two old
narrators it is not clear that the Yahwist ever mentions the
tabernacle or the Elohist the ark. The relation between the
two calls for further investigatioii, especially as the ark retains
its importance after the occupation of Canaan, whilst the 'tent
of tryst' is not mentioned after the time of Moses, who, accord-
ing to the Elohist (Ex. 12), enjoyed at it a privilege of direct
access to the Deity not accorded to later prophets (cp also A RK
OF COVENANT).
(4) Lastly, the whole historical tradition from the
period immediately following the settlement down to
13. The taber- the date of the building of Solon~on's
temple has no knowlege of any taber-
nacle non-in nacle. True, apologists like Keil hare
succeeded in writing to their own
historical
times. satisfaction itscomplete history through-
out the period of the judges arid the
first kings : at one time it was at Shiloh, at another at
Nob, finally at Gibeon, whence it was removed to the
temple. The Chronicler has indeed much to tell about
it, proceeding a s he does cn the-to him self-evident-
assumption that in every case where the older books
made mention of sacrifice at all this must have been at
the tabernacle (I Ch. 1639 2129 z Ch. 1 3 55). The
older historical books, however (nith exceptions to be
mentioned immediately), know nothing of it. I K.
3 15, in explicit contradiction of z Ch. 1 3 , states that
Solomon sacrificed on the great high place of Gibeon
and excuses this proceeding, which from the redactor's
point of view of conrse seemed illegal, on the grcund
that the temple was not yet in existence. But no
temple was required for the purpose if the tabernacle
was then at Gibeon. The sanctuary at Shiloh, on the
other hand, was not a tent at all but a solid house
EV 'temple of the Lord,' ( n w S J . ~ ,hikaZ YahwL,
I S. 19 33), with nz2xziaifh (AV 'door posts,' RV 'side
posts') and dt"ith5fh (EV ' d o o r s ' ) ; cp especially Jer.
7 1 2 8 Moreover, the ark is spoken of in I S. 4-6 in
such a manner as shows that there was no fixed place
where it was kept, and thus no Tabernacle. After it
has been recovered from the Philistines, for example,
it does not come to its proper house but first to Beth-
shemesh and next to Kirjath-jearim, to the house of a
private individual, where it remains for years. Thence
it is fetched by David, who, however, after the disaster
to Uzzah brings it into the house of one of his generals,
and that too a gentile, Gbed-edom of Gath (2 S. 7).
Not till later does he transfer it to his own city, where
he sets up a tent for its reception plainly in remembrance
3f the fact that the ark had formerly also been so
housed. This tent was in time removed by Solomon
to the temple ( I K. 84). for if these verses are old and
belong to the context it is only this tent that can be
anderstood by the '8hd md'id (more probably, however,
!he statement is of a later date ; see Benzinger ad Zoc.).
rhus the only remaining passage will be I S. 222, a
>assage which is already open to critical doubt owing
:o its absence from 6. From all that has been urged
@e may safely conclude that the tabernacle of P is
iimply the temple of Solomon carried back into the
Ader time by priestly fancy and modified accordingly.
[t was not the temple that was built on the model of
.he tabernacle ; it was the tabernacle that took its shape,
:haracter, and importance for worship and the theocracy
kom the temple.
Josephus, A n f . 9 6 - 8 ; Pbilo De vit. Mos. B q s S The
>Ider literature will be found 'more or less fully registered in
such works as those of Bahr or Riggenbach.
14. Literature. Of later works we mention the following :
Bahr, Symbolik des Mas. KuZtusC4, 1 9 7 f i ;
Friedrich Sym6oZik der Mos. Stiftshutte (1841) ; W. Neumann
Die SfifshrZtfe 1861' Ch. J. Riggenbach Die Mosaiscd
Yt;fshfftfe (188;) : Poiper, Der 6idZ. Berich; &er die St@s-
i&Vc (1862); articles by Winer in R WB 2 529 : Diestel in BL
~ 4 0 5 8; Leyrer in PREP), 15 9 2 8 : Riggenhach in PREp)
,47123.; Riehm in H W B ; Fergusson, art. 'Temple' in
4874
 TABERNACLES, FEAST OF
Smith's DB: Welte in Frei6urg.evKirchen-lexicon: Kurtz in Sf.
Kr., 1844, pp.,315J? ; Knmphausen i6id. 1858, pp. 9 7 3 1859
pp. 1 1 0 3 ; Fries, ibid. 1859, pp. IO&, Riggenbach, ibid.', 1863:
p 361f. E n g e l h a r d t i n Z L r 1868,pp.409f'alsotheArchae-
o&-iis G'Jahn (3 2 2 6 3 ) DeJWette-R5b1ge;'268 f l . Ewald
(3) 163y 3 6 7 8 (1)387) 4 2 0 8 . Saalsch&z 2 3 1 8 k ' K e i i
FJ 8 2 8 ZT 1 9 8 k ' SchoIz"l233': Haneberg i 6 1 8 . S'chegg)
4 0 6 3 ; Bennnger, k A 395%, and Nowack, f f 22 538'; Schick:
Stlffsh?i:ileu. I'emjel, 1898; A. R. S. Kennedy, art. 'Tabernacle'
in Hastings' DB. On the question of the historicity of the
accounts of the tabernacle CD esoeciallv De Wettc. Beifr.
1258 fl, 2 2 5 9 3 ; Vater, COMA.3 658f: ; t o n Bohlen, Genesis,
1 1 2 8 : George, Judische Feste, 4 1 3 ;Vatke, Bidl. Theol. 224f.;
.
Nddeke, Beitr. z.Krifik, 1 2 0 3 Graf, De fern L S i f o n m i ,
1855, and Die Gesch. B6. d. A T,'1866, 7 5 x ; duenen, G O A-
diensf, 2 75f: : Reuss, L'histoire sainte e t la bi, 240; Well-
hausen, Pmf.P),4 0 8 E T 3 8 8 I. B.
TABERNACLES, FEAST OF. The Israelitic cycle
of festivals came to a close, in autumn, with the feast
1. agricultural of Tabernacles. In the old legislation
character. ((Ex. 34 22 23 16) it is called hag ha'isiph
? the feast of ingathering,' aad
r p ~IF),'
is to be celebrated '"at the turn of the year' (nzrpp
ny??). The very name shows quite clearly that the
festival in its essential meaning is agricultural, a harvest
feast ; it is the autumn thanksgiving which no doubt has
reference primarily to the fruit harvest and the vintage,
but from the outset was regarded as the great thanks-
giving for the whole produce of the year.
Hence the general expressions 'when thou gatherest in the
produce of thy field' (Ex. 23 16, 33t?-]p $'kEp?
$3pFT),
'when thou gatherest in from thy threshing-floor gnd from thy
press' (Deut. 16 13, S??l@ $iWp 93D:p).
Like the other harvest feasts, it is inrimately con-
nected with the possession of the land of Canaan, and
was celebrated for the first time there by the Israelites,
who in all probability took it over from the Canaanites.
I t is with regard to the autumn festival specially that
our information as to its having been a Canaanite festival
is explicit ; of the people of Shechem we are told that
they went out into the field, gathered their vineyards,
trode the grapes, and held festival and went into the
house of their god and did eat and drink (Judg. 927).
Cp also FEASTS, 5 4.
As the closing harvest thanksgiving, and probably the
oldest of the three feasts of harvest (see PASSOVER, 4 ;
a. The most PENTECOST, 5 6), the autumn festival
important of excels both the other great annual festivals
the yearlJr (huggin, n m ) of the Israelites in im-
festivals. portance. In the law of J E , it is true, all
three are already found on the same plane
as equally necessary and equally important ; for all of
them attendance at the sanctuary is enjoined (Ex.3422
2316). Yet how great was the special importance as-
signed in practice to the autumn festival as compared
with the others appears at once in its very designation
as 'fire feast' (IF?,ire&) or ' f h t feast of Yahwb'
( n r r 15, hug Yahw?) KaT' @ox$v (I K. 82 1232 Judg.
21 19 ; and even as late as Lev. 233941 Ezek. 4525 Neh.
814). Even in Zechariah ( 1 4 1 6 8 ) it is to the
feast of tabernacles that the remnant of the heathen go
up year by year to Jerusalem to worship the King,
Yahwb SBbEi6th. In these circumstances it cannot be
regarded as merely accidental that the feast of taber-
nacles and the feast of tabernacles alone is more than
once mentioned in the historical books when dealing
with the more ancient period, and its celebration thus
attested from the earliest period after the settlement in
Canaan. At Shiloh, for example, the maidens celehrate
it by going forth to dance in the orchards and vineyards
(Judg.2116).' So also we learn from the story of
Samuel that in wide circles it was customary year by
year at the ' revolution of the days ' (n;F? nieqn5, I S.
1 The narratives in udg. 19-21 are certainly in their present
form late Midrash. A t there need not be on that account any
doubt as to the accuracy of this statement or of many other
touches preserved in them See DANCE, 5 6, and cp further,
Budde, ad loc.
4875
TABERNACLES, FEAST O F
120 ; cp the same expression in Ex. 3422) to go in
pilgrimage with the whole family to the sanctuary at
Shiloh, and there to sacrifice to Yahwe and hold a joyous
sacrificial meal ( I S. 1 3 8 ) . The high importance
attached to the festival is shown also in the fact that
Solomon dedicates his temple at the same date ( I K.
8265, cp z Ch. 7 8 3 ;on the passage cp also below,
5 3). Answering to the yearly observance of this feast
at Jerusalem, Jeroboam, according to a thoroughly
trustworthy statement in I K. 1232 (cp Benzinger,
ad 206. ) instituted a similar solemnity in the northern
kingdom ; here the only error of the author is in sup-
posing (from his Deuteronomistic point of view) that
before Jeroboam's time such a feast was observed only a t
the temple of Jerusalem, and not also at the sanctuaries
of the northern kingdom. Pilgrimages of the same
sort as those to Shiloh were in use also in other parts
of the country to the various famous sanctuaries. T h e
passages just cited show also at the same time that this
autumn festival from the very beginning was celebrated
in common by wide circles of participants. This does
not seem to have been the case in the olden time with
the two other harvest feasts ; if observed at all, it was
enough that they should be observed in quite small
local circles; at least the complete silence of the histori-
cal books on the subject would be most easily ex-
plained in this way. The special importance of the
feast of tabernacles continues to show itself in the
Deuteronomic legislation. In contrast to what is re-
quired at the two other haggim, it is enjoined that all
the days of this festival are to be observed at the central
sanctuary in Jerusalem (Dt. 1615 ; cp a. 7).
In the older legislation no more precise details than
those already indicated are given as to how and where
3. Original the feast ought to be observed. Else-
where (FEASTS, § I O ) it is shown that
c ~ ~the olden
~ time i had~ no thought
~ , at all of
fixing the three harvest festivals to any
definite day. This lies in the nature of the case.
T h e great autumn thanksgiving was held as soon as
the corn-harvest, vintage, and ingathering were finished.
This happened, of course, in the various districts, and
in different years, at different dates. In the hill-country
around Jerusalem the feast was held of old in the eighth
month. The completion of the temple was in the month
of BEl, the eighth month, and its dedication was at the
time of the autumn festival ( I K. 638 : cp 8 ~ ) .It~ is
evidently in order to bring it into accordance with the
Jerusalem date of the feast on the fifteenth of the month
that the autumn festival a t Bethel was fixed for the same
day by Jeroboam ( I K. 1232).
For the observance of the festival the offering of gifts
from the fruits that had heen gathered and of animal
sacrifices accompanied by a sacrificial meal were matters
of course (cp I S. 1 3 3).In the olden time the gifts
and offerings were left to the freewill of the worshipper
according as his heart impelled him to show his thanks
to Yahwe (cp T AXATION, 5 8). S o also it is matter of
course that the feast was observed as a joyous occasion.
1 [See also SHECHEM, and cp Crit. Bib.!
2 In the present text of I K.82 it is indeed said that the
dedication was ' a t the feast in the month Ethinim, which is the
seventh month.' T o reconcile this date with I K. 6 38 according
to which the temple was finished in the eighth monti, it would
be necessary to suppose that after its completion the dedication
of the temple was put offtill the seventh month of the following
year-that is to say, for eleven months. This is in the highest
degree unlikely. Since, moreover, we learn from I K. 1 2 32
that a t that period the festival was observed at Jerusalem in
the eighth month, we must suppose,the original text of I K . 82
to have read merely ' a t the feast. The name of the month
EthSnim is a later insertion easily explained by the consideration
that, on the one hand, the fixed tradition was that the temple
had been dedicated at the feast of tabernacles, and, on the other
hand, that this feast, a t a later date, but before that of Deutero-
nomy (I 4), had been assigned to this month. The explanatlqn
of the name of the month-< which is the seventh month '-1s
the addition of a still later hand, as is shown by its position ; it
is also wanting in @BL [@A ha5 a curious reading ~ h b 6 s p$u
L , ~ S O ~ ~ K O e,%opoc].
W~S C p further, Benzinger, ad ~ O C .
4876
 TABERNACLES, FEAST O F
Compare what we read of the feast of the Shecheniites (Judg.
9 27) or of.the dances of the maidens (cp DANCE, s 6) at the
feast of Shdoh (Judg. 21 19fi).
When, then, in Dt. the feast is for the first time
designated (in our present texts) as the ‘ feast of
tabernacles ’ (Dt. 16 13 ; see below, 5 4 ) and the priestly
law (Lev. 2342) expressly enjoins living in booths as
part of the ritual of its celebration, or when the Law of
Holiness (Lev. 2340) orders the participants to take
(the fruit of goodly trees, branches of palm trees,‘ and
the like, we may be perfectly certain that these are not
newly invented innovations, but that very ancient custom
lay at the foundation of the practices thus prescribed.
’The living in booths and the name ‘ feast of tabernacles ’
or booths ’ are connected with the simple fact that at
the time of the olive and grape harvest it was usual to
spend days and nights in booths of this kind-a practice
which still holds its ground in those parts (see Robinson,
BR 2717 ; cp Is. 1 8 ) . l If these booths at a later date
found a recognised place in the official ritual of the feast,
this shows that, properly speaking, all these days of
harvesting during which people lived in the open under
booths were regarded as constituting a festal time, which
was brought to a close in, let us say, the pilgrimage to the
sanctuary. With this also we may connect the precept in
Dt. (see below) to observe the feast for seven whole days
at the sanctuary. The other injunction, referred toabove,
to furnish oneself with fruits of goodly trees, branches of
palm trees, and so forth (if the reference be not simply to
the branches needed for making the booths ; see below)
we ma); perhaps connect with what we read of the
festal dances in Judg. 21 xgj? I t would be natural for
those who took part in these to adorn themselves with
sprigs and garlands.
In its festal legislation Dt. (1613-IS), as already
remarked, designates the autumn festival by the name
4, In Dt. of hug hu-suhhtth (nim? in), ‘feastof taber-
nacles ’ or ‘ booths ’-a designation which,
although not employed either in H or in P (see
below, $8 5, 6), it continued to retain.2 As has
already been said, it was not to any change in the
significance of the festival or to any new ritual that this
new designation was due ; if Dt. had intended to
introduce something that was new when it spoke of the
celebration under booths, this piece of ritual would
have been expressly prescribed. On the contrary, Dt.
simply assumes both name and thing to be already
familiar ; thus the name also was already in use before
the time of Dt. The duration of the feast is fixed a t
seven days, and in fact all the seven have to be observed
at the sanctuary in Jerusalem (see above, 5 3). T h e
joyous character of the feast is also thoroughly preserved
in Dt., as well as the idea of its being a harvest feast ; and,
in full agreement with the general spirit of solicitude
shown in the Deuteronomic law for the welfare of the
poor and the like, it is expressly enjoined that the bond-
man and the widow are all to take joyful part in the
celebration (1614).
1 For evidence of the ancient practice of spending the
festival under booths we cannot with confidence appeal to Hos.
12 1o[9]. The expression there madense of--,yin, m8‘2d,instead
of J!l, kag- is quite unusual. Still less suitable, it is true, is
the interpretation which (so Wellhausen) refers it to the passover
feast. In no other place do we read anything of a dwelling jn
tents during that feast. In the prophetic threatening ‘ I wdl
yet again make thee to dwell in tents, as in the days of the
(-,pin) solemn feast no reference to any joyous festival merely
a reference to the wandering in the wilderness is reqdired by
the connection. Hence Kautzsch’s rendering ‘as in the day Of
the assembly, [at Horebl’ seems the hest. If the prophet IS
really intending the fqast of tabernacles in this allusion, we
shall then have our first distinct trace of an assumed parallel
and connection between this ‘dwelling in booths’ at the feast
of tabernacles and the dwelling in tents in the wilderness at the
exodus from Egypt. Cp further, Wellhausen and Nowack,
ad zoc.
2 In the NT and in Josephus it is accordingly spoken of as
mqvomj+a, 3 as ;op* uqviiv, in Vg. as scmopagia, and in
in Q
Philo (2 297) as mqvai.
4877
TABERNACLES, FEAST O F
It is shown elsewhere (FEASTS, § I O ) how the cen-
tralisation of the cultus in Dt., even without any
express intention on the part of the lawgiver, inevit-
ably altered the character of the feasts. It became
necessary that they should be observed at one common
definitely fixed date, they lost their intimate connection
with the life of the husbandman, and the tendency to
change them into historical celebrations was greatly
strengthened by this circumstance. No express refer-
ence to any historical event in connection with the
feast of tabernacles is met with as yet in Dt. The
bringing of the first-fruits at all is connected only in
a quite general way with the historical fact that it is
Yahw&who has delivered his people from the land of
Egypt and given them the land of Canaan to possess.
As thanks for the gift of the land the Israelite brings
the first-fruits of its produce as a gift to YahwC (Ut.
261-11).The bringing of the first-fruits enjoined in Dt.
in conjunction with a liturgical formula of thanksgiving
is not indeed in the law itself (Dt. 261-11) expressly
connected with any definite time. It is. however,
exceedingly natural to assume that the author of the
injunction thought of it as to be carried out on the feast of
tabernacles, for it deals with the offering of the first-
fruits of the wine and oil-harvest as well as with the
first-fruits of corn, and contemplates this as being done
a t Jerusalem. For this the feast of tabernacles was the
convenient opportunity, unless one is to read the precept
as implying a special pilgrimage to Jerusalem for the
purpose. In this connection a quite general reference
to the Exodus is implied for the feast of tabernacles.
Lastly, in Dt. it is further laid down that every seventh
year, the year of release, ‘this law’-i.e., the Deutero-
nomic law-shall be read before all Israel at the feast
of tabernacles (Dt. 31 1.8).
Ezekiel is the first to give to this feast-designated
the feast’ or ‘ the feast of Y a h d ‘-a definite date ; it
~. In Ezek. is to begin on the 15th day of the seventh
month, and to last for seven days (Ezek.
and H. 4525). He orders for it the same offer-
ings as for the passover ; every day seven bullocks
and seven rams as a burnt-offering, a he-goat as a sin-
offering, an ephah for every bullock and every ram, with
a hin of oil to each ephah as a meal-offering. The
Law of Holiness (Lev. 23 39-41) in its present form has no
precept as to the offering. The date in u. 39 is hardly
original. On the other hand it is here prescribed that
the Israelites on the first day of the feast are to take to
them the fruit of goodly trees ( ~ rp7*la ; cp under
A PPLE, § 2 [3]), branches of palm trees and boughs of
thick trees and willows of the brook, and rejoice before
Yahwh seven days. That the palm branches and the
boughs are to be used for making booths is nowhere
said. It is equally possible to suppose that they were
carried by the participants in their hands (cp above,
3). Such a custom is attested at any rate for the
later post-exilic period ( z Macc. 1 0 6 Jt ; ]os. Ant.
iii. 104, 5 245. xiii. 135, § 372). What could be the
application of ‘ fruit of goodly trees ‘ in the construction
of booths is not easy to see, and it is more natural to
suppose that the fruit formed part of the thyrsus which
each participant carried in his hand (cp below,
§ 7).
The laws of P concerning the autumn festival are
1 How much of Lev. 2339 belongs to the original law
of holiuess is very questionable. As in what follows this
verse mention is always made of only seven feast days,
0. 396, which speaks of an eighth day, may he presumed to
be a later addition (see below, 0 6). The same holds good
of the time determination in v. 3 a The other festivals also
are not yet assigned to a fixed 8; in H. On this question
see further the various introductions, especially the tables in
Holzinger.
2 nhx f‘p is explained by tradition as meaning ‘myrtle.’
Occurring as it d w s between ‘ palms’ and ‘willows,’ the expres-
sion would certainly seem intended to denote some definite kind
of tree.
4878
 TABERNACLES, FEAST O F
found in Lev. 2333-36 4 2 8 Nu. 2912-38. The name of
6 , In p. the festival is there the same as in Dt. : feast
of tabernacles or booths, hug hus-sukkcth
(nim? JF : Lev. 23 34). The preference of P for this
designation is not a mere accident; it is intended to
denote, not a part of the ritual merely, but the meaning
of the entire festival ; it conveys, not only that during
the festival it is necessary to live in booths. but also
that the festival commemorates the booths in which
Israel lived at the exodus from Egypt. It is exactly to
this that the peculiar usage of the feast is intended to
point (Lev. 23428 ). The change of meaning, designed
to give the feast a place in the history of redemption,
has thus been fully accomplished ; there is now no
longer present any trace of a reference to husbandry-
a reference which, indeed, is absent also from the Law
of Holiness. As with all festivals in P, so also in the
case of the feast of tabernacles, the chief emphasis is
laid upon the public sacrifices which are offered with
lavish abundance, no longer a s in Dt. upon the volun-
tary gifts of individuals and the sacrificial meal arising
from these. The public sacrifices consist, over and
above the regular daily burnt-offering with the customary
meal and drink-offerings, of a sin-offering of a he-goat to
be offered on each of the seven days of the feast, with
in addition a daily burnt-offering of two rams and
fourteen lambs, and on the first day thirteen bullocks
besides, on the second day twelve bullocks, and each
succeeding day a bullock the less-thus, on the seventh
day seven bullocks, two rams, fourteen lambs. In
each case there are, of course, the appropriate meal-
offerings of fine flour mingled with oil-three-tenths for
every bullock and two-tenths for each of the two ranis.
As compared with the offerings prescribed for the other
principal feasts, those here enjoined are enhanced to an
extraordinary degree-in some instances being more
than doubled. Thus down even to so late a date as
that of P we can clearly trace the continued operation
of that pre-eminent importance which attached to this
feast above all the rest in the oldest times.
There is yet one other point in which P goes beyond
Ezekiel and H ; to the traditional seven days of the
feast it adds yet an eighth as a closing festival, ‘&Lreth
( n y ) . As compared with the other seven days, this
has an independent character of its own ; it does not
simply continue the sacrifices of the preceding days, but
there are offered a he-goat as sin-offering, a bullock, a
ram and seven lambs as a burnt-offering-in each case
with the appropriate meal and drink-offerings, of course
in addition to the regular daily burnt-offering. This
day, however, as can readily be understood, is always
reckoned as part of the main festival itself, and in later
times it was customary to speak of an eight-days’ feast
( a Macc. 106 ; Jos. Ant. iii. 104, 5 245). This eighth
day, like the first, is celebrated by a great assembly and
by abstinence from every kind of work; for the inter-
vening six days this is not demanded.
In post-exilk times, just as in pre-exilic, it is pre-
cisely of the feast of tabernacles that we most often
Later. hear ; it always continued to be one of the
most important festivals. Of the exiles
after their return we forthwith read that when the
seventh month came round they did not neglect the
feast of tabernacles. And, as matter of fact, after the
introduction of the law in 444 B . c . , the feast was
regularly observed in strict conformity with the legal
prescriptions. This is expressly emphasised in Neh.
8 1 4 8 It is, however, very noticeable that here the
legal innovation is the revival of a custom which had
passed out of use: not, as might be expected, the
sacrifices, but the dwelling in booths. From this no
other conclusion is possible than that this dwelling
in booths was practised in the older time, not as a
festal rite, but as a harvest cnstom. After Dt. had
transferred the observance of the feast to Jerusalem, the
practice had gone out of date ; what had formerly been
4879
TABERNACLES, FEAST O F
quite natural had now in the capital no meaning.
When, however, the custom was brought into con-
nection with history and judged to be a reminiscence
of the tents of Israel in the wilderness, it received a new
meaning which gave it fresh significance as a part of the
ceremonial of the feast and recalled it to new life. From
the account in Nehemiah (8 16) we learn further that in
Jerusalem the booths were set upon the house roofs, in
the house courts, in the courts of the temple (this last,
of course, only for priests and Levites) and in the broad
places of the city gates. Olive branches, branches of
wild olives, myrtle branches, palm branches, and
branches of thick trees ( n i q yy, see above, 5 5 , n. z )
were employed for the purpose. The public reading of
the book of the law, a s required by Dt. (see above, $4).
was also a feature of the festival. The Chronicler’s
account of the feast of tabernacles at the dedication of
the temple ( z Ch. 7 8 8 ) is evidence of the observance of
the festival in accordance with P in the Chronicler’s own
time in so far as the seven days’ feast of I K. 865 i s
altered into a feast of eight days. Finally, we read
in the Maccabean period of the celebration of a feast
resembling the feast of tabernacles, immediately after the
purification of the temple ( z Macc. 1 0 6 8 ) . This
feast also lasts eight days; the participants carry in
their hands ‘wands wreathed with leaves, and fair
boughs, and palms also. ’
The custom here referred to (perhaps already an old one ; see
above 5 5) continued in use during the later period. The order
of the‘ feast is prescribed down to the minutest details in the
Talmudic tractate entitled Sukka (cp MYRTLE). There the
branches, etc., are not only used for making booths, but are also
carried in the hands as the celebrants go to join in the worship.
The ‘fruit of goodly trees’ (177 yg ‘77) was interpreted to mean
the ethrig (fil?!), apple of paradise, or Adam’s apple, the
2~ ‘ri66ih (niar f’p) the myrtle. Accordingly, a palm branch
still in its ‘sceptre-like’ condition, that is, not yet expanded (the
so-called ZziZri6,395) was fastened up along with a myrtle and
willow in such a manner that the myrtle was on the right and
the willow on the left of the palm. This festal thyrsus (also
called I2ilri6) was held in the right hand whilst the left carried
an etrtrig and thus equipped the celeLrants went in procession
with hosamas and waving of thyrsi round the altar of burnt-
offering, each day once but on the seventh day seven times, to
commemorate the s d n days’ encompassing of the walls of
Jericho. Joyphus calls the thyrsus (Ant. iii. l o 4 5 245)
cipeuujq-which means properly the harvest wreath’of olive
or laurel wound round with wool and decorated with fruit
which the Athenian singing boys carried ahout at the autumn
feast of Pyanepsia. Another Greek designation employed
.
is (tripuor (thyrsi 2 Macc. 10 7 ; Jos. Ant. xiii. 13 5,
properly the Bacch’ic wand wreathed in ivy and vine-leaves with
372).
a fir-cone at the top which was carried by the worshippers at
the feast of Dionysus. It is doubtless this whole custom that
Plutarch has in his mind when be represents the Jewish feast of
tabernacles as being a Dionysiacfestival.(Syn$. 46 :6 s p q i u q s
rrai r e X e t o d n p iop+ rap? ‘Iodaiois 6 Karpis &-L xai A r p i m s
. ..
Acovvlriw 1 ~ p 0 ~ j . w ~e m i 62 Kai Kpaqpo+opia ris io@ rai
Bvpu+$ia vap’ ohois, i v 3 ~ p u o v sZXOYW cis rb repbv
eiuiauiv).
Another peculiar custom, with regard to the meaning
and origin of which there is still great uncertainty (cp
N ATURE-WORSHIP, 5 4),was in connection with the
daily drink-offering which was offered during the seven
days of the feast. For this the water was taken from
Siloam. A priest drew it in a golden pitcher of a
capacity of three logs, and brought it amid trumpet-
blasts through the Water Gate into the outer court
of the temple. ’There other priests received it from
him with the words (Is. 1 2 3 ) : ‘Ye will draw water
with joy from the founts of salvation,’ in which words
priests and people alike joined. The water was then
mixed with wine, and, while the priests blew on the
trumpets and the Levites chanted psalms, was poured
into a silver basin standing at the south-western corner
J f the altar, from which it flowed by a pipe into a
subterranean channel and thence to the Kidron. W e
may, perhaps, bring this practice into connection with
the ancient custom of drawing water and pouring it out
‘cp I S. 7 6 ) which may possibly have been used and
:etained precisely a t the feast. Tradition has it that
4880
 TABITHA
abundant rain for the new seed-time and a fruitful year
are symbolised in the act. In all probability the words
of Jn. 737f: are to be read in this connection.l Yet
one other characteristic of the feast remains to be men-
tioned : the festal joy on the night between the first and
the second day. In the court of the women four-
branched golden candlesticks were erected and lighted
up. With music, psalms, and trumpets, a torch dance
was then performed by the most prominent priests and
laymen. The offering of the festal sacrifices was
accompanied, as in the case of the other great feasts,
by trumpet-blowing by the priests, as also by the singing
of the great hallel-Le., Pss. 113-118 (see HALLEL);
when the Hosanna was reached in Ps. 11825 the 1fi18bs
were shaken.
Outside of Palestine the Jews observed the festival in like
manner in booth5. As the determination of the month‘s com-
mencement and of the whole calendar connected with it depended
on actual observation of the new moon, and thus was uncertain
(see New MOON), it was customary for the Jews outside of
Palestine to observe the first and eighth days of the feast twice
over on consecutive days, so as to make sure of observing the
common national feast quite simultaneously with their brethren
in Palestine.
After the destruction of the second temple arose the custom of
adding yet a ninth day-the ~ 3 r dof Tishri-to the festival,
celebrated as the feast of ‘the joy of the law’ (>Ti??
npp).
On the Sabbath preceding this day the reading of the l a b as
divided into 5 2 parashiyyeth or lessons in the synagogue service
came to an end ; on the following sabbath the reading was re-
commenced. Cp Vitringa, De Syn. Vet., 1696, p. 1m3.
See the literature cited under FEASTS; also the articles in
Riehm, HerzogPlitt, Smith, etc. 1. B.
TABITHA (TAB[E]leA [Ti. WH]),a Acts936 40t.
See DOKCAS
; cp GAZELLE.
TABLE. The words are :-
I. &ai &&in rpbrre<a mensa. See MEALS, $3 3“; ALTAR,
# 1o;and’cp S A C ~ I F I 0C) 3E4,a .
>DO, 7rrPsa6 & d r A r u r c (-l)uis [Cl),, a c d t w s , is taken by
2.
E V in Cant. 1~ z ’ i nthe sense of ‘table : cp MEALS, 5 3a, and
n. 2 ; also 0 3 6, n. z ; hut see also BDB, and Bu. ad Zoc.,
Haupt, J B L 21 (1902) pt. I , p. 54.
’
3,. n>5 Itisih TAL$ (31 times) mtiov (thrice), fa6nZa, 6uxus.
Chiefly Af the‘ tables’ of the law Ex. 24 12, etc., hut also of the
tnhles or tablets on which the rophets wrote their prophecies
(Is. 308 Hab. 2 2), and of tabEs for writing generally. Cp
W RITING .
4. rpLm<a, Mt. 1527 I Cor. 1021 Heb.92, etc.; seeahove, I.
5. ahkt 2 Cor. 3 3 Heb. 9 4 ; see above, 3.
6. .A& in M t . 7 4 [Ti. WH om.] is rendered ‘table’ in A V .
RVom. RVmg. many ancient authorities add and couches.’
See above, z, and cp MEALS, 8 36 and n. 2.
. r r r v a d r o v Lk. 163, A V ‘ table,’ RV ‘ tablet ’ ; dimin. from
d a $ , and so a)small tablet (for writing).
TABLE LAND (7idW) a Ch. 2610 RVmg., EV
’ plain(s).‘ See JUDZA, P LAIN.
TABLET. I . YpjS, R u m @ , Ex. 3522 Nu. 315ot.
RV ARMLET. See N ECKLACE, 5 4.
2. p h , $Liyan, Is. 8 I, RV see DRESS,5 I [21, ROLL, 2.
3. d??;r ’51, 6it2 (?) hn-n@&< Is. 3 20. See P ERFUME
BOXES.
TABOR (7\25; BaBwp [BKARTL], raieBwp [B]
ea+we [A] Josh.19~2,TO ~ T A B ~ ~ I O[BA]
N Hos.51
phJrsicalJer. 46 [@ 261 18 ; A T A B ~ ~ I O NPOW.
&=ader- V.706. CP l € P O N A l O C ATABYPIOY at
Agrigentum and in the isle of Rhodes
istics.
ib. iX. 277 ; TO I T A B ~ ~ I O Nopoc JOS. ;
ITABYPION Euseb. OS 26890 and B A B w p , ib. 26127 ;
Ztubyrium. Thabou, Jerome), the hill now called Jebel
1 The words are spoken on the ‘great’ day of the feast-
$ i q L w $@ips $ pr/LAl) n j s loprijr. By this probably is meant
the seventh day, on which procession was made seven times
round the altar which on this day was decorated with branche:
of willow. T h k day is in fact called by the rahbins the ‘great
Hosanna day--x?? 7$-7yVl”ni-, or also the ‘willow’ d a y -
”?>! Di’. The eighth day, the ‘+rtfA, is not strictly speaking
to be reckoned to the feast of tabernacles ; the special sacrifices
and festal observances terminate on the seventh day (see above).
This day, therefore, cannot be regarded as that intended in Jn.
’I
%7’CpT O S I ~ &(Wadd. zr55)and ra@ra&l,cited by Dussaud and
Macler, Voy. Arch. 158 (Paris, 1901).
4881
TABOR
et-T&. Its dome-like shape as seen from the’s. or
SW. (‘mira rotunditate,’ Jer. O S l S 6 ~ 3 ) , and its
apparent isolation, make it a striking feature in the
landscape of SE. Galilee. Hence it ranks with Carmel
among conspicuous heights : e.g., in Jer. 46 18, and the
Midrash, Bey. K . , § 99, ‘Tabor came from Beth-elim and
Carnie1 from Aspamya to attend the law-giving at
Sinai.’ A psalmist even implies that what Hermon is
on the E. of Jordan Tabor is on the W., Ps. 8 9 r 3 (but
cp the commentators). It rises from the level of the
Great Plain to a height of 1843 ft. (1312ft. from the
base); the summit is an extensive platform, 3000 ft.
from E. to W., 1300 ft. at its greatest breadth, a
peculiarity which did much to determine the associations
which have gathered round the mountain. Though
from some aspects Tabor appears to stand alone, in
reality it is a spur of the Nazareth group of heights,
and is linked to them on its N. side. Its slopes, like
the W. slopes of Carmel. are covered with vegetation
and stunted trees, oak, ilex, terebinth, beech, carob,
olive, etc., which afford cover to an unusual number of
animals. From the top opens out a superb panorama,
often, however, veiled with mists in the spring-time.
The situation of the mountain, its imposing and
prominent outline, explain at once the part which it has
played in history. In all ages Tabor has been famous
either for its sanctuary or for its stronghold. Com-
manding the NE. quarter of the Great Plain and one of
the main outlets down to the Jordan, the W. esh-SherHr,
it has considerable strategic value, whilst to the instinct
of early religion it would seem to have been designed by
nature for a holy place.
The boundaries of Issachar, Zebulun, and Naphtali
meet upon Tabor :..ITosh. 1922 (Issacharl. 12 CHISLOTH-
a.Let- TABOR-i. e. “flanks of! Tabor ‘ (Zebu-
and strong- hln),34 ’AZNOTH-TAROR-i.e. ‘peaks (?)
. .. of Tabor‘ (Naohtali\. I Ch. 6 6 2 1771
no‘a‘ (Zebulun ; kH &xd~). In the %f
and the last of these passages Tabor is the name
of a town on or near the mountain. Long before
the Israelite occupation Tabor was a holy place;
it naturally became the common sanctuary of the three
tribes whose portions met there. So we may infer
from Dt. 3319, ’they ( i e . , Zebulun and Issachar) call
peoples to the mountain.’ Though Tabor is not
expressly named, as it is the mountain in which both
these tribes had an interest the allusion would be clear
to early readers. The passage seems to refer to some
kind of religious fair or gathering at the sanctuary
of Tabor to which the neighbourhood was invited for
worship and barter (Stade. GVZ 1171 ; Driver, Deut.
409 ; see also Herder, Geist d. Hebr. Pdsie, 1508
ed. Suphan). In the days of Deborah and Barak these
tribes had suffered most from the hostility of the
Canaanites ; accordingly upon Tabor, as the common
rallying-point, Barak gathered his men for a descent
upon the enemy in the plain below (Judg.4612 14).
Perhaps there was another reason for the muster on
Tabor besides the obvious advantages of the position ;
the holy war, as von Gall suggests, would probably
begin with a sacrifice at the tribal sanctuary (Altisr.
Kultstuffen,124f. ; cp I S. 139 12 Mi. 35, etc. ). From
one account it appears that the battle was fought at the
foot of the mountain (Judg. 4 r4f. ) ; the Song, however,
does not mention Tabor, and places the battle farther
off, by Taanach, along the left bank of the Kishon
( 5 18-20). By this victory Tabor was secured to Israel ;
and, as a stronghold commanding one of the main
caravan routes across the Plain, it must have proved an
invaluable possession during the times of conflict and
slow consolidation which followed (Judg. 7 I z z I S.
2 8 4 8 291 311). Of its fortunes in the daj-s when
1 I n Talm. R. the extent of Tabor is given as 4 parsa, Rib.
B a t h 736 (Z&i&nr 1136 reads 40 parsa) ; the figures of Jos.
BJiv. 1 (height 30 stadia, the a&ov on the summit 26 stadia):
a r of
~ course absurd.
4882
 TABOR
Assyrian and Egyptian armies passed within sight of it
we know nothing (Is. 8 2 3 [91] 2 K.2329 Zech. 1211).
The sanctuary continued to serve the district. By
Hosea's time it had become associated with the idolatrous
form of YahwB-worship which was characteristic of the
N. kingdom : hence it incurred the prophet's denuncia-
tion; its priesthood, like that of Mizpah. the other
typical 'high place,' is ' a net spread out' to catch
deluded worshippers (Hos. 5 f). Nevertheless the
sacred character of the mountain was not forfeited ; in
the course of time no doubt it influenced the Christian
tradition (I 5) ; it never quite lost its hold upon Jewish
memory. In a late Midrash we find the opinion that
'the Temple itself might well have been built in the
portion of Issachar,' had it not been otherwise ordered
(Yalkut on Dt. 33 19 imv' $w $m> n i n s * w in i m n n.3).
The Tabor of Judg. 8 18 can hardly be the mountain ;
it is too far from the seats of Gideon's clan : the scene
3. Judg.818of the murder was the neighbourhood of
Shechem rather than the Plain of Jezreel
and s'103.(but cp G IDEON , 2). It is simplest to
suppose that there was another Tabor near Ophrah
(Budde, Ri. Sa. 114; but see also Moore, Judges, 228).
The 'terebinth [RV 'oak'] of Tabor' ( I S. 1 0 3 ; @ L
74s Gpds 74s P K ~ E K T ~ is
E )probably to be placed, as the
context seems to require, in Benjamin, hetween Rachel's
Grave, on the N. border of Benjamin, and Gibeah
(von Gall, Z.C. 88f.). Ewald's emendation n i i m p s ~
( = ni33 Gen. 35 8) is scarcely necessary ; there must
have been more than one such sacred tree in later
Jewish history. See, further, RACHEL'S S EPULCHRE.
In later Jewish history Tabor was the scene of three
memorable engagements.
The first occurred in the struggle between Antiochus 111. the
Great (213-187 B.c.) and Ptolemy IV. Philopator (222-205 B.c.)
for the possession of Palestine (Polyb. v. 70). After
4. Jewish the surrender of Philoteria (S. of Lake of Galilee)
history. and Scythopolis, about 218 ~.c.,Antiochusmarched
into the hill-country and appeared before Ata-
byrium 'which issituated upon arounded hill(irirhd+oupamer-
6oGs), dore than 15 stadia in ascent,' and captured the place by
a stratagem. Polyhins calls Atahyrium a d h r s standing on
such a' position. .
-
the toD of the hill. and the account of its camure aerees with
In B.C. 53 the proconsul A. Gabinius, general of Pompey,
fought Alexander, son of Aristobulus., a t the foot of the
mountain ( m p i ~b 'I~+<prov &poc), and IO,WO Jews fell in
battle (Jos. Ant. xiv. 6;).
The third episode is recorded in fuller detail. As governor of
Galilee Josephus fortified Tahor against Vespasian in 67 A.D.
Under pressure he built a wall round the summit in forty days,
and supplied the fort with water from below, for the inhabitants
( & o r x o ~ ) had been dependent upon rain. Vespasian sent
Placidus with 600 horsemen to attack the Jews by enticing them
down to the plain; they were unwise enough to leave their
strong position in the hope of overwhelming the cavalry; it
became inipossihle to retreat, and they were completely defeated.
Want of water compelled those who were left in the fort (oL
i m &pro&)to surrender the mountain to Placidus (Jos. BJ iv. 18
ii. 2%6, Vita 37). Remains of Josephus' wall were discovered
in 1898.
Since the third century Tabor has been revered by
Christian tradition as the scene of the Transfiguration.
II.The TrcLns-The Gospels themselves do not give a
name to the I high mountain' ((ipos
ir$vXb); but it was more likely
Hermon than Tabor (see HERMON, I, M OUNT AIN).
The Transfiguration is dated six (Lk., eight) days after
the confession of Peter at Caesarea Philippi = BaniHs at
the foot of Hermon. Nothing is said of a journey in
the interval; the return to Galilee is placed after the
Transfiguration (Mk. 930). Moreover, in Jesus' time,
Tabor was hardly a place to which he could lead the
three apostles ' apart by themselves ' ( K U T ' ldfuv pL6vous :
Mk. Q z ) - K ( L T ' iGluv obviously refers to the apostles,
not to the isoZution of Tabor. The passages from
Polybius and Josephus quoted above imply that the
summit was inhabited and partially fortified.
E r e Barnab&, who bas written lately in support of the
tradition argues that there never was, and never could have
been, a town upon the summit because of the absence of water
and cultivable land sufficient to support a population (Le Mont
4883
TABOR
Tlrabor, Paris, 19~0). But the difficulty was overcome in other
situations of a similar character ; many remains of cisterns have
been discovered on the summit. and monasteries have managed
to live there. T h e assage ib the Gosgel &:cording to the
Hc6rews quoted by Brigen (Comment. in Joan. t. 26 ; Migne,
P G 14 col. 132)~where Jesus is made to say, ' Even now has my
mother, the Holy Spirit, seized me by one of my hairs and
borne me to the great mountain Tabor,' can hardly be said to
support the Christian tradition ; hut it may have helped to give
rise to it. The context of the quotation is lost, so that we
cannot tell what event is alluded to; not improbably it was the
temptation. Cp T E L P T A T I O N , %$ 14,andsee Moulton, Bib/. am?!
Sew. Studies Yale Univ., 1901,p. 161, with the references.
At any rate Okgen himself accepted the tradition (Comment. in
Ps 88 I; [89121 ; PG12 1548), ',Tabor is the mountain of Galilee
where Christ was transfigured. In the fourth century it is held
Py Eusebius who speaks of Hermon along with Tabor as
mountains Lpon which the wonderful transfigurations and
frequent sojourns of onr Saviour took place'(Conznient. in Ps.
88 13 [89121 ; PG 23 rc92); by Cyril of Jerusalem, 'Moses . .
and Elias .. . .
were present with him when be was transfigured on
Mt. Tabor'(Catech. 13 16,;'PG 33744); by Jerome? ' Itabyrium
et tabernacula Salvatoris, . .. montem Thabor in quo trans-
figuratus est Dominus ' (E# 46 and 108 ; P L 22 491 ; ib. 889).
Before the end of the fourth century, the tradition was widely
current in the E., and pilgrims, such a s Paula (Jerome, E#. 46)
and Sylvia of Aquitaine, began to venerate the spot. I t is
generally believed that the Empress Helena founded a basilica
on Tabor about 326 A.D. ; whether any remains of it can still be
traced may be doubted. The church with three apses excavated
in recent years (plan given by Barnab& Z.C. r36), is'considered
to show characteristics of fourth- or fifth-century work (de VogiiC
Eglises de T.Saint(, 1860, 3;zfi); in 570 the three chapel;
were seen by Antoninus of Plaisance, and in 670 by Arculf, hiihop
of Eichstzdt, the earliest travellers who refer to them; their
narratives are published by the Socz2ti de Z'Orienf Latin (194
and 185). The only dissentient voice in the early period is that
of the Bordeaux Pilgrim (333 A.D.), who places the Transfigura-
tion on the Mt. of Olives (Ifinerariunz [8th cent.], SOC.de
I'Or. lat. 1IS) ; otherwise, down to the time of the Crusades the
Christian tradition ie unanimous and constantly repeated. I t
finds ,a place in the services of the Greek Church for Aug. 6th-
e g . , E+88"my j GpJppq. mjs jv0dou a&+pomiys. dverurv s k ~b
Bpop 70 Baj3op o A r m o q s q s 0f6qros a h o G & a m I+aL r$v
i p a r d q r a (XlpoA6yrov r b &+a, Venice, 1876, 348); gut in the
Western service-books it does not seem to occur.1
In the history of the Frank kingdom Tabor maintained
its associations with religious devotion and hard fight-
6. The ing. In 1099 Tancred occupied the
Crueadem. mountain with European troops, and
when he withdrew he endowed the church
and entrusted it to the care of Benedictine monks, who
restored the ancient basilica and built a monastery.
Not long after, in 1113, the Turks under Malduk
fought a battle with Baldwin I. on the plain below ;
the Crusaders were severely beaten, and the monks
massacred. But fresh monks soon took their place; the
abbey received new donations ; the dignity of archbishop
was conferred upon its Abbot Pons and his successors
by a bull of Eugenius 111. (1145). Then came the
advance of Saladin in 1183; his troops ravaged the
Greek convent; and in 1187,after the disaster at the
Horns of Hattin, the holy place of Tabor was reduced
to ruins and abandoned by its Benedictines.
Early in the thirteenth century, Melik el-'Adil, in order to
attack the headquarters of the Franks at Acre fortified Tahor,
using part of the ruined church for his towers. ?he fortifications
were completed in 1213 by his son, Melik el-Mu'aqam ; several
inscriptions commemorating the work have been found recently
among the debris (Barnab&, Z.C. 15, roo). I t was this fortifica-
tion of Tabor that occasioned the Fifth Crusade. I n 1217
Andrew I1 kin of Hungary, and other Princes advanced
against Tab& wit% a great host, and besieged the fort seventeen
days ; the first assault was boldly delivered and as boldly re-
pulsed ; delays and divisions in the Christian camp helped to
make the second attack fruitless, and the Crusaders were forced
to retreat. See the vivid narrative of Vincentius Bellovacensis,
SOC.de 1' Or. lat. serielrist., 398; Kugler, Gesch. d. KreuzzzZge,
3 1 2 3 : Michaud, Hist. of Crusades, 2 ~ 2 6 s The fortress
was afterwards dismantled by Melik el-'Add in the hope of
restoring peace ; and, in the years which followed, the church
~
1 I n the fourteenth century the dogma of the Uncreated
Liqht of Mt. Tabor was promoted by Gregory Palamas Arch-
bishop of Thessalonica(ab0ut 1349). He asserted that o i e light
of Tabor was visible and comprehensihle, the other invigible
and incomprehensible: see Migne, P G 1507730: Gregory
became a patron of the curious sect of the bp6aAl$u O L drawn
from the monks of Mt. Athos, who devoted themserve; to the
contemplation of the uncreated light of Tabor ; Migne, ib. col.
899f: Nilles, KaZendarium nranuule, Innshruck, 1896, S.V.
Aug. 6.
4884
 TABOR, PLAIN OF
was rebuilt and served by monks from Hungary (1229) ; for a
short time it passed into the possession of the Hospitallers of St.
John. But Tabor was not left in peace for long. In 1263
Uibars, the Blanleluke Sultan of Eg pt, in the course of his
campaign against Damascus, finally {urn, and devastated the
church, and the holy-place of Tabor was left a heap of ruins for
600 years. Franciscans from Nazareth conducted pilgnms to
the summit from time to time, and celebrated, as well a s they
could, the Feast of the Transfiguration on 6th Aug. and the
second Sunday in Lent. Not until 1858did the Franciscans begin
to undertake the care and excavation of the ruins : Greek monks
followed soon after ; and in 1873 was built the modest Latin
convent which, with the Greek monastery close by, guards the
ancient sanctuary. Napoleon’s Syrian campaign brings Tabor
into general history for the last time; in 1799 the French troo s
under Klbber, afterwards reinforced by Napoleon himseff,
encountered the vast army of JezzBr, and the battle of Mt.
Tabor ended in the complete discomfiture of the Turks; see
Lanfrey, Hisi. de NaPoZeon 1~7,1399f:
The derivation of the name Tabor is unknown. In
spite of its triliteral form, Winckler considers that the
., Name. name has survived, like ‘Jordan,’ from
pre-Canaanite times, and therefore is not
Semitic in origin. For B Semitic derivation he suggests
the Eth. dadr mountain,’ with d for i under influence
of fhe liquid ( A O F 1423). This interchange of dentals
is perhaps to be found in the name of the village at the
NW. foot of Tabor, Df?bti&y&=DARERATK (g...).
possibly a formation from iim; the Arab. form has
preserved the long vowel in the second syllable. One is
tempted to conjecture that the primitive form of i n n
was i i m (cp i>?? Josh. 1121 1326 Judg. 111).
Older etymologi& have a certain interest ; c.g. Syr.-Hex. mg.
ad Ba+p Josh. 19 22 gives p+p, and explains 68th ‘& house
of light’: Jerome OS 312 496 ‘veuiens lumen, veniat lux
(11K Hl3fl!).
Among the Arabs Tabor has long been known as
Jebel et-TFir--i.e., ‘ the mountain’-a name given also
to Gerizim, Olivet, and Sinai. Sometimes the Arabs
call it Jebel Niir, ‘of the light,’ in allusion to the
Transfiguration, for the Christian tradition is accepted
by Moslems; Gukrin, GaZilie, 1 1 4 3 8 W e should
expect Tabor to be mentioned in Egyptian documents ;
but this is probably not the case. The ‘Dapura’
in the country of ‘Amaura,’ so called to distinguish it
from another Dapura, among the towns conquered by
Rameses 11. (temple of Karnak), is to be looked for
on the Orontes in N. Syria; the Depunr mentioned
next to Kadesh in the papyrus Anastasi I. (224,
Chabas, Voy. d’un Egyptien en Syrie, pp. 197,313),
if not the same place, belongs to the same region. The
situation of Tapru in the BiilSk Papyrus is not specified.
The equivalent of these iiames would probably be irsg,
’ hill,’ rather than iim. See WMM, As. u. Eur. zzo&
The name of the mountain has not been found in
Assyrian records.
In addition to the authorities referred to above may he men-
tioned the following : Survey of W. Pal. 1 3 ~ :8Robinson,
BRP),2 351 8 ; GASm., H G 3 9 4 8 ; Buhl,
8. Literature. PaL p 68. Wre Barnab.6 gives a full and
valuable collection of material (the point of
view is uncritical and the references are not always to he
trusted). For a r;cent Koman Catholic work which rejects the
traditional site of the transfiguration, see Ahh.6 le Camus,
Notre voy. a r ~ xPays bib1. (Paris, 1899, 1 8 2 8 G. A. c.
TABOR, PLAIN OF, or rather (so RV), O AK OF
TABOR (lilg I\%, THC Apyoc BaBwp [BAI, T. A.
THC E K A ~ K T H C [L; see below]; puercum Thudor), a
locality between the city where Samuel and Saul met
and ‘ Gibeah of God ’ (see GIBEAH,5 z [3]), I S. 1 0 3f.
It has been supposed by Ewald (Hisf.321) and Thenius
(without ancient authority) to be identical with the
‘ palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in
mount Ephraim ’ (Judg. 4 5 ) . This is certainly plausible.
On the other hand the descriptions of the sites of the
two trees cannot be said to agree. The city referred to
in I S. 9 6 E is not said to be Ramah, and Bethel in
mount of Ephraim ’ and ‘ Gibeah of God ’ cannot be
identified. It is much more likely that the ’ oak ’ (or
rather, ‘ sacred tree ’) referred to in I S. l o 3 was uncon-
nected with any biblical story except that of Saul, and
15G 4885
TAHATH
that Tabor is a corruption of some other name, possibly
Bahurim (n*inx) : cp b L ’ s rendering ( ~ f s P K ~ E K Z ~ S ) ,
which presupposes iq. See RACHEL’S SEPULCHRE.
T. K. C.
TABRET. I. qh,tciph, I S. 105 ; AV
has a slight
preference for timbrel ’ : KV has ‘tahret in
Gen. 3 1 27 Is.
512 2483032 Jer.314 Ezek.2813, hut ‘timbrel’ in Ex.1520
Judg.1134 1S.105186 z S . 6 5 I Ch.138 JobZl1zPs.813[2]
149 3 1504. See Musrc, S 3.
2. n$ta, tipheih, Joh176. See TOPHETH.
TABRIMON, RV Tab-rimmon (flDl?l?, 5 44, as if
‘ Rimmon is good,’ or ‘ wise,’ but see RIMMONii. 8 2),
father of B EN - HADAD (I K. 1518 : T A B ~ ~ ~ M[B], A
T A B ~ N ~ A H M A [AI. TABE~IZMMAN [L]). Cp TABEEL.
TACHE (P’PJ) Ex. 266, etc. RV ‘clasp.’ See
T ABERNACLE, $ 4 (I).
TACWONITE (’XDgnn) I S.238, RV TAHCHE-
MONITE.
TADMOB (1bTn; eehMop [AL], BOEAMOP
CBbJ BOEIAOMHCIN THN eoaAoMop [B* Cum Sign:
perversa.: lect.], P a h i r a m [Vg.]) ‘ in the wilderness,
a name given ( z Ch. 8 4 f ) to a city built by Solomon
by the Chronicler. This late historian doubtless had in
view the great city in the Syrian desert between Damascus
and the Euphrates (iimn, isin of the Nabataean inscr.)
known to the Greeks and Romans as Palmyra (see
WRS, 5.21. ‘Palmyra’ EBPI),* the mod. Tudmur,
vulgarly Tudmir.* This appears from his bringing it
into connection with Hamath and the N. H e is, how-
ever, simply misquoting I K. 918, where the RV is
certainly right in following the Kt. (mn, L e . , THm2.r.
not as some have supposed Tammdr) in preference to
the harmonistic Kre ‘Tadmor’ (ibm) adopted by AV
following the versions. For the context here clearly
shows that not Palmyra, but some place in the S. of
Judah is meant (see T AMAR ), and we have no reason
to think that the boundaries of Israel ever extended so
far N. The name Tadmor occurs nowhere else in the
OT, nor even in the cuneiform inscriptions, nor can
Palmyra be traced in history till just before the Christian
era, 42-41 B.C. (Appian. BC 59). At that date,
however, Palmyra was a place of some importance (cp
ARABIA, § 3), and it may very well have come into
existence some centuries earlier-long enough for the
real story of its founding to be quite unknown in Israel
in the time of the Chronicler. F. B.
TAHAN, TAHANITES (inn, ’?pn),Nu. 2635. See
below, TAHATH.
TAHAPANES (DnJ5vn) Jer. 2 16, RV TAHPANHES.
TAEASH (dnn)Gen. 2224, AV THAHASH.
TAHATH (nnn),
an Ephraimite name originating in
the Negeb, see SHUTHELAH (1Ch.720 6is v o o p e = p n ~ l [R
only once], Baa@,vopee [AI, Baa9 [ L twice]). The name occurs
again in I). 25 under the form TaHaN (in!, Bacv [Bl, -av [L]
L a . [A-ie., K d r e.]),and similarly in Nu. 2635 [PI (LXX v. 39
ravax), cp the family of the Tahanites (ib. ’!ni?O, b ~ava,y[e]r
[BAFLI). In the priestly genealogies in I Ch. 6 which are
intended to supply the great singers with a Levitical ancestry
’I‘ahath is twice mentioned among the ancestors of Samuel and
Heman ( I Ch. 624 [91 77 [221, rad3 [R, hut 9. u. 371, 0. [AL])
and it is only reasonable to identify Tahath or Tahan (d
Nahath?) with T O H U Iq.v.1, which is also an Ephraimite name
(cp EPHRAIM, 5 12).
TAHATH (nnn,note the a priestly’ name T AHATH
above). a stage in the wandering in the wilderness ;
Nu. 33261: (KATAAB [BAL], KaTBaae [FI). The
1 For the earliest exact modern account of Palmyra (by
Halifax, r69r), see PEFQ Oct. 1890,pp. 2 7 3 8 See also Post,
‘ Second Journey to Palmyra,’PEFQ, 7892-93 : Bernoville,Dix
,burs en Palmy+znp (1868).
2 On the connection between the names fadmrr and raApvpa
see Lag. (U6crs. 125, note) who approves t h e conjecture of
Schultens(VifaSaladina; s l e the Geog. Indexunder ‘Tadmora,’
where the form tatitrrr is cited), that the original was tafmnv,
w.th the meaning ‘abounding in palms.
4886
 TAHCHEMONITE
name stands between Makheloth and Terah, both of
which are possibly corruptions of ‘ Jerahmeel’ (Che.).
See W ANDERINGS , W ILDERNESS O F .
TARCHEMONITE, AV Tachmonite (’?b?p,0
XANaNAlOC PA11 YlOC & K E M A N € l [?I), 2 s. 238.
Probably miswritten, owing to the repetition of n from
the preceding word, for 713337 (note 6 xau. in BA)-;.e.,
vns;l, ‘ the . . . -ite ’ (so Marq. ). This is in accordance
with the other descriptions of David’s other heroes. But
w x can hardly be correct. Besides, 31237 is preceded
(according to the emendation suggested under JASHO-
BEAM) by n’x; * J D J X - ~ ’ ~is analogous t o vxSn-n-2. J
and ibeing sometimes confounded, it is plausible to
correct into ’m?-n”p--i.e., a man of Beth-cerem (see
BETH-HACCEREM); i and n were transposed. Cp
Carmi, the name of a son of Zabdi, Josh. 71, and
note that in I Ch. 272 Jashobeam is called b son of
Zabdiel ; also that in I Ch. 41 Perez and Carmi are
brothers, and that in I Ch. 273 Jashobeam is said to
have belonged to the b’ne Perez. T. K. C.
TAHPANHES (Dn$?n, Jer. 437, etc.) or Tehaph-
nehes (DnqFC?, Ezek. 3018) : Jer. 216 Kethib DJDlln TAHPENES (D’>Q?q ;a in I K. 11zob defectively ;
(EV Tahapanes), Judith 19 AV TAPHNES, RV TAH- BEK [Or X ] E M [ ~ ] I N ~[BAL] ; vg. Taphnes ; I K. 1119J
PANHES, a city of north-eastern Egypt. Ezek. 30 closes [twice]), the wife of Pharaoh, whose sister was given
the long enumeration of Egyptian cities threatened by
destruction, with Aven- Heliopolis and Pi-beseth-
Bubastus, v. 17. and Tahpanhes, v. 18, all three belonging
to the Eastern Delta. The long verse, devoted to
Tahpanhes, where ‘ the yokes (better, as 6 ,‘sceptres’ ;
see Cornill) of Egypt ’ shall be broken, and ‘ the pride
of her power shall cease in her ’ shows the wealth and
importance of the place, as does the allusion to ‘her
daughters ’ -i.e . , surrounding towns (Jer. 43 7 f: ).
Jeremiah, with many fugitives, fleeing from Palestine to
Egypt, comes to Tahpanhes and settles there. This
points again to the place being near the entrance from
Palestine into Egypt-ie., in the NE. In v. g the
words ‘ the entry of Pharaohs house in Tahpanhes’
seem to indicate that the place had a royal palace which,
even if used only on occasional visits of the king, would
indicate an important city. In 441 4614 Tahpanhes
(which, however, is wanting in the good MSS of d in
4614), Migdol, and Noph are the three most important
settlements of Jewish fugitives in N. Egypt, as distin-
guished from Pathros in the S. In Jer. 216, the Egyp-
tians are called ‘children of Noph (Memphis) and
Tahpanhes.’ Judith 19, enumerating Taphnas and
Raniesse and the whole land of Goshen (Gesem), as
far as Tanis and Memphis, etc., seems to be following
those Jewish settlements.
d transcribes the name as Taglvar (indeclinable) in
Jer. and Judith ; in Ezek. d B has Taglvar ; Vg. not
Tnphnn, as is usually quoted, but Taphnis (indeclinable :
the same form occurs as accusative in Jer. 4371. It has
always been concluded from these transcriptions that the
reference is to a place which Herodotus, assimilating its
name to the Greek word for ‘laurels,’ calls Aa$ua~.
According to him ( 2 3 0 ) Psammetik I. established a
great camp of soldiers a in Daphnae near Pelusiuni ’ (&
Acipgur TGUL IIeXouuigu~), which the Persians still
maintained. In 2 154. he reports that Sesostris, return-
ing from his conquests, rested there. The Zt. Anton.
places Dnfno 16 R. m. inland from Pelusium; Steph.
Byz. also mentions Aaq5uq.l Already Wilkinson (Modern
Eg. and Thebes, 1447) identified this place with the
modern Tel(1) Defenneh (about 2 5 English miles in a
straight line SW. of the ruins of Pelusium), which was
excavated by Flinders Petrie in 1886 (see Petrie,
Tunis, 2 ) . Petrie found traces of earlier buildings of
the Raniesside period, a great camp, fortified, accord-
ing to the foundation records, by Psammetichus I.,
maintained under Necho and Amasis, and evidently
1 The form Ta$var in the Coptic version, of course, proves
nothing, being taken mechanically from the Septuagint.
4887
TAHTIM-HODSHI, LAND O F
abandoned afterwards, the palace or citadel having been
destroyed by fire. Many finds of arms, pottery, etc.,
showed that the garrison had consisted chiefly of Greek
mercenaries. The position of this fortress, on the right
bank of the Pelusiac branch of the Nile close to the old
caravan-road to Syria, explains its great importance and
agrees excellently with that of tlie biblical Tahpanhes a s
key to Egypt (cp Jer. 437) ; the expression in’ Jer. 216
would be explained by the strong garrison. Such a place
would also be best adapted for a Jewish colony which,
evidently, subsisted chiefly on trading. Wilkinson’s
identification may, therefore, be considered as very
probable.’ The Egyptian name of the city has, how-
ever, not yet been found, which is not surprising, if w e
consider that the city received its importance only under
Psammetichus I. Such Egyptian etymologies as have
been attempted so far are too improbable to be discussed
here.
[On the theory that the reference in all the passages which
mention ‘Tahpanhes’ is to N. Arabia (cp PROPHET gs 26J 40)
‘Tahpanhes,’ like the other traditional names, disAppears f r o 4
the text. For the underlying words see Crit. Bi6. on Jer. 2 16
Ezek. 30 17JI . W. M. M.
to Hadad, the Edomite, to wife. The name has a very
Egyptian appearance, although no certain etymology
could be given, except that the initial t would be the
Egyptian article. The present vowel-points seem to
follow the analogy of the city TAHPANHES (4.v. ). See,
however, HADAD,according to which article we should
not expect an Egyptian name for a queen of MuSri in
N. Arabia which seems to be meant here instead of
Egypt. The possibility remains open, at any rate, that
at a later time, when the king of Musri in question had
become a Pharaoh in the text, and the whole narrative
was referred to Egypt, an Egyptian name was worked
into the story. It would he futile to try to reconstruct
the various short Egyptian words which could be found
in the name, especially a s d differs somewhat from the
Hebrew. [On the Heb. text cp Crit. Bib. on Jer.
46 IS.]. W. M. M.
TAHREA (mpn; e ~ p d a[ALI.
l BapaX [BKI). a
descendant of Meribbaal ; I Ch. 941.
TAHTIM-HODSHI, LAND OF ( ’@lQ n’npn nv,
THN ~ A B A C U N H E C T l N NAAACAI [B], r H M E e a U N
AAACAI [AI, r H N XETTl€lM KAAHC [L];
State Of Pesh. om. vers. ; fewunz inferiorem
--
the problem’ Hodshi rVe.l), -,- a district mentioned be-
tween Gilead and Dan-jaan in the account of the
movements of Joab in taking the census of the people
of Israel ‘from Dan even to Beersheba,’ 2 S. 246.
That ‘ Tahtim-hodshi ’ is corrupt, is too obvious to be
questioned. Several remedies have been offered, but
not quite satisfactorily, owing to the want of a thorough
textual criticism of the whole narrative of the census
(uv. 1-9) in the light of parallel passages of geographical
description.
I. Ewald (Hist. 3 162, n. 3 ) thought that for
‘ Hodshi (?)’ we should read ‘ Hermon ’ ( p y n ) . Gratz
changed, in addition, ‘ Tahtim (?) ‘ into ‘ t e a t h ’ (nnn) ;
cp Josh. 113, where Wellhausen, Buhl, Bennett (SBOT,
1 No significance, however, should he attached to the fact
that the Arabs called a part of the ruins ‘the castle of the
B i d e l - Yehddz?, which has induced
h ’
ew’s daughter (&r
etrie even to find the alleged Lbrick-kiln’ of Jer. 439 (sFe
BRICK-KILN). It may be mentioned here that Erman (in his
review, Berliner PhiloLo‘oeische U’ocfzenschmyf, 1890. p. 959)
has warned us against laying stress on the similarity of the
names Defenneh (?) and Daphnae. The best Arabic form is
Tel(l) Defeineh or De$=& (others give the lural Def n e t i . . .,
‘ treasure-hill,’ evidently from finds made {ere by Arabs, not
from an old name of the locality.
2 Rg.,Lagarde once tried to find in Tahpenes the goddess
pkme(t), worshipped especially at Memphis. A fa-.So&me(f)
the one belonging to S.’ would, however, require quite .a
number of violent emendations
4888
 TALENT
‘Joshua’), and Steuernagel (but not Di.), read ‘the
Hittites ( y m ) under Mt. Hermon.’ But in this case
we require to prefix ’?no, thus producing ‘ the land of
the Hittites under Hermon.’ H. P. Smith prefers ‘the
land of the Hittites to Hermon.’ But are not Hermon
and Dan somewhat too near together?
2. Wellhausen (TBS217), following Hitzig (for ‘nn)
and partly Thenius (for ‘in), reads ngl? o.?,~?, ’ (to the
land of) the Hittites towards Kadesh.’ This is con-
firmed by @- (see above), and is adopted by Steuer-
nagel, Driver, Buhl ( S B O T ) . But is not Kadesh
on the Orontes too far N. ? Wellhausen has to suppose
that the boundary line is traced to Kadesh, and that
it then comes back (SW.) to Dan. And had David
really conquered the northern Kadesh, and even com-
pletely incorporated it into the territory of Israel?
C p Buhl, Psi. 69.
3. Klostermann ( a d bc.) and Guthe (Gesch. 94)
would read nrLi-13 .-:- ‘(to the land of) Naphtali
-:-. 9’7~91,
towards Kedesh’ ; cp Dt. 341J (where, in the descrip-
tion of the prospect from Mt. Nebo, Naphtali is intro-
duced after ‘ the land of Gilead as far as Dan ’), and
2 K. 1529, where Kedesh is mentioned with Ijon (the
name which, according to Klostermann, lurks in the
second part of D AN - J AAN [g.n.]) and Gilead, as repre-
senting together the far N. of the land of Israel. This
is plausible, but involves a somewhat bold emendation
of o’nnn.
A more secure solution of the problem can, as has
been said above, onlybe reached in the course of a
a. propBB radical correction of the text. (On Dt.
341f., one of the passages referred to by
Klostermann, see NEBO, M OUNT.)
According to the present writer’s emended text of
z S.81$ (in a section which Budde, quite independ-
ently, places very near 2 S.241-9, which it precedes),
David had recently conquered the parts of N. Arabia
nearest to the land of Judah, viz., MisSur and Jerah-
meel (the region from which the Israelites appear to
have come). That David treated his new siibjects
with the cruelty asserted in the M T of 2 S. S z , may be
confidently denied (see Crit. Bib. ).
A study of the ways of the scribes suggests that the true text of
that passage (omitting a number of corrupt dittograms of $Nnniq)
is, ’111 vxp ’nni o’nrr-na eirn~! nhnn1-i l?xn q::, ‘and he
smote Missur and the Jerahmeelites, and subdued thezarephath-
ites, and Migsur became’ etc.
What David did next is shown us in 2 S . 241-9.
The thought came to him, ‘ Go, number Mi5gw and Jerah-
meel ‘ (v. I) or as David puts it in his commaid to Joah ‘ Go
to and fro throGghout all Zare hath-misgur, from Dan (1 Misran)
even to Beer-sheba,l and numger ye the people’(% 2). Verses
*9 -,7 describe Toab’a oroceedinm.
~
‘And the; pa& througg- Jndah and began from Aroer-
jerahmeel the city that is in the midst of the valley of [Jerah-
meelj JizGel, and they came to Jerahmee1,z and to the land of
thr R&ohoihites to K d e d and they turned rour,d to the city
of Misran. And they cam: to Missur (or, to the fortress of
Miss&), and to all the cities of the Horites (Jerahmeelites) and
the“Kenites,; and they came out to the Negeb of Judah, to
Beer-sheha. According to 8. 9 (originally), Joah gave the
number of the men of I\Ii;Fgur as 8000, and of the men of Jerah-
meel as 5000.
Thus ‘ Tahtini-hodshi ’ becomes ‘ the Rehobothites
to Kadesh.‘ The Rehobothite warriors in David’s
bodyguard are known to us in the present text as
(Cherethites.’ See REHOBOTH. T. K. C.
TALENT (Y??, Ex. 2539,etc.; TAAANTON.M~.
2524,
etc.). See SHEKEL, and W EIGHTS A N D MEASURES.
1 W e now see the original significafion of the literary expres-
sion ‘from Dan even to Beersheha. There was a southern
Dan. Possibly, however, ‘from Dan’ (pp) may be an early
scribe’s error (IymD), and the original coiner of the phrase wrote
‘from Migran (I????). In either case the extent of the Negeh
is thus defined. In the lapse of time this was forgotten.
a Rahbah of the hne Jerahmeel, misc+d in the text of z S.
12 26, etc., ‘ Rabbah of the hne Ammon.
4889
TAMAR
TALI”- CUM1 (TAhlea [Ti., -81.WH! KOYM),
two Aramaic words in Mk. 541 (see J AIRUS ), correctly
interpreted by ~b K O P ~ O L O V (ool XQyw) Eyerpe: ‘little
maid (I say unto thee) arise!’ The most im-
portant variants are ( I ) ~ a j 3 r ~etc.
a , (with b for Z), and
Koupr (see Ti.). T a p ~ ~ ifa , not purely an error,
suggests TABITHA [p.v.] ; K O U ~is of purely gram-
matical interest ; see Dalman’s useful note, Gram. d.
/iid.-PaZast. A r a m . 266, n. I. Talitha, properly
’ young one,’ used very frequently of lambs (in Aramaic
more especially of the gazelle), would be represented in
Aram. either by ;alyithi or (cp Dalm. op. cit. 118,n. 6 )
(llifhi.
TALMAI (V&’m, cp Nab. lh,
and the Lihyiin
TaZmi [DHM Ep. Denk. 51, also e O h O M A l O C [see
BARTHOLOMEW]; Cp w i . GI 240. n. I ; 8 O h M l , -81,
e&h&Mel). But the correctness of the reading ‘Talmai’
(with n) has been questioned (see T ALMON , TELEM).
I. One of the sons of A NAK [q.~.]a t Hebron (Nu. 13 22 [23].
BeAapaw [BA], Bo. [L], -ft [Fl ; Josh. 15 14 : Bodper [HI, 7i)v
Y [Bl, ~ . B a p f r[AI).
2. A king 02
B d p a r [AL] ; udg. 1I O BoApa [Ll T ~ -Y
Geshur b.AMMIHU ~ probably Jerahmeel
&e.,
[Che.]) whose daughter (Maacah) was one of David’s wive;, and
mother of Absalom. (2 S. 3 3 : Boppec [Bl ; 13 37 : BohpaAnp
[B], BoAopac [A]; I Ch. 3 z : Bowar [Bl, B o A p a [A], BoAopr [L]).
TALMON (fiD$O, TEAMWN [BA] c. [L]).a family
of doorkeepers or (reading D’?pN [Che.l) Asshurites in the temple.
Ezra 2 42 Neb. 7 45 (mAal.lov [BH], T O A ~ O V[AI), cp I Ch. 9 17
(TWpaV or -p [B, see Swete], T d p a v [AI, -WY [L]) ; Neh. 1119
and
(TCA~~CLLV ) . 12 25 (om. BNCA, T+WY [NLa mg. 1 , 7 d WY
[L]). In :Esd.528 TOLMAN (RV, not in B, ToApav [AD. The
clan to which Talmon and another doorkeeper T ELEM (O>h)
belonged was an important one. See TELEM, and cp S HALLUM
(8, 11).
TALSAS (cahebc [B]), I Esd.922 AVkEzralOzz
ELASAH, I.
TAMAH (np),Neh. 7 5 5 AV=Ezra253, TEMAH.
T A M m (7Ql7,‘date-palm’), a place on the SE.
border of Judah, mentioned by Ezekiel (4718 [e2
@OIN[E]IKWNOC BAQ] I9 [be A l M A N K. @., 8 being
a dittograph both of 33Dn and !Dn] 4828 [b
ealMAN], w k [Pesh.], for M T s%g, ‘ y e shall
measure’ [metiemini, Vg.]), and, as is usually held,
one of the cities fortified by Solomon (I K. 9 18 Kt.
and RV ; AV, however, gives TADMOR [P.W.] e € p M A 8
[A, om. BL], l&spMae [B at 1023, om. AI, 8oA-
MOP [L ~‘6.1;Palmirum; )w?l [Pesh.]). Knobel
among critics, and Robinson and Wetzstein among
geographers (cp T RADE , so), have identified Tam=
( I ) with the Thamara of Eusebius and Jerome (=the
military station Thamaro of Ptol. 4 16 and the Peutinger
Tables), a village which is a day’s journey from Mapsis
(OS21086 853) between Hebron and Elath, and further
(2)with the ruin called Kzrnub, on an elevated site SE.
of 'Arks (A ROER , 3).4 This, however, does not suit
the passages in Ezekiel. It appears that some point
near the SW. point of the Dead Sea must be meant.
ZOAR [p. TI.] was called ‘ villa palmarum’ in the times
of the Crusaders, and Zoar was probably not the only
place in the district which rejoiced in its stately palms.
Engedi, however. is too far N.
The T AMAR of I K. 9 18, which has generally been
1 Cp Tor, where it is inquired whether ‘’yn, king of wn,’ is
not miswritten for ‘.Din, king of n>yn’(Talmai, king of Maacah).
2 Reading, ‘from HAZAR-AENON [in the NE.] . . . the
Jordan forms the boundary ( B 6 ‘ o p i < e ~ = $ x n ) as far as the
eastern sea (going along) unto Tamar (mnn).’ So Smend,
Cornill Davidson Toy etc.
3 Se; Ruhl, Pa? 184’ n. 545. The origin of the form ‘Map-
sis’ is not clear. Homkel (Ex#. T.12 288 [1901]) has identified
with it the M a + of Ptolemy v. 16 10 and the obscure nwm on
pottery stamps from the ShPphelah hstrict (PEFMern., ~ p z ,
pp. 1068).
4 See Van de Velde, Syria and Pal. 2 1 3 0 8 (more judicious
than Robinson [BR 26161, who did not actually %,isitKurnub),
who sees that Kurnub CanDOt he the ‘ Tamar’ of Ezek., and cp
Buhl, Lc. and Del. Gerr.(4)j81.
4890
 TAMAR
identified with that of Ezekiel, requires separate treat-
ment. It is credible that Solomon’s fortress was for the
protection of the commercial road from Ezion-geber to
Jerusalem; but it is not less possible that it was to
guard the Negeb towards the land of Musri (see
SOLOMON, 7). ‘ Tamar,’ both here and elsewhere, is
therefore probably miswritten for mi (Ramath), which
is a corruption of ‘ Jerahmeel’ (see TAMAR ii.). ‘ In
the wilderness, in the land’ (y;lw 131~1) should
probably be ‘ in Arabia, in Mksur ( i ~ p ? 3 3 ) (Che. ;
see Crit. Bib.).
T A W (lQb,as if ‘ date palm,’ 69 : BaMap (Sam. 124)pronouncesunintelligible.theancients took the
[BKADEL]). The name, in the sense of ‘ date palm,’
is of course suitable enough for a woman (cp Cant. 77f.
[Sf:]). But it also occurs as a place-name, and we have
to find an explanation which will fit both the personal
name and the place-name. Winckler ((;I 298f: 104J 227)
offers such an explanation. Tamar, he thinks, is the
Canaanite IStar ; the myth of Tammuz and IStar was
doubtless transplanted into Canaan (cp Stucken, ArtraZ-
tnythn, 14-16). B AAL - TAMAR was the place where
the men of Benjamin had their tribal sanctuary, and
dedicated to the [female] goddess IHtar. Cp KIRJATH- course untenable.
JEARIM, SAUL. ‘Baalath and Tamar,’ I K. 918,
should rather be Baalath-tamar (a less original form of
Baal-tamar). All this is set forth with great force and
learning; but there is a doubt whether the relics of
mythology can be so easily traced, and whether textual
criticism, methodically applied, does not here, as often
elsewhere, suggest a better explanation.
Proper names in the OT are even more frequently corrupt
than has been supposed, and need very careful emendation, and
it so happens that mn, both as an appellative and as a proper
name, is specially liable to corru tion The passage I K. 9 18 is leaves, and surmounted in spring with spikes of beauti-
treated separately (see T AMAR i.7; w; are here only considering ful pink blossom.’ ‘ Thoiigh it is often a mere bush,’
the passages in which ‘ Tamar ’ occurs as the name of a woman.
A careful study of this group of passages suggests that ‘ Tamar ’
has here most probably arisen out of one of the popular distor-
tions of‘ Jerahme’elith ; another such corruption IS M AACAH,
and a third is MAHALATH. We may add that iDn’H, ITHAMAR numbers of the Eastern tamarisk on the banks below
(the name of a son of Aaron) very possibly came from $wnni.,
Jeralpe’el (n from n); cp J EREMOTH.
I. The wife of Judahs son Er, who subsequently,
through her father-in-law, became the mother of P EREZ
and ZERAH [qq.v.] ( G e n . 3 8 6 8 [J] 1Ch.24 Mt.13
[AV here THAMAK]). The story is referred to in Ruth
(412) a s furnishing a parallel to Ruth‘s marriage with
Boaz. According to Winckler it is a Canaanitish
development of the myth of Is’tar (see above). For
another and a preferable view of the significance of the
story, see J UDAH , col. 2617f.
2 . Sister of Absalom ( z S . 1 3 1 8 I Ch. 3 9 [B always
Bvpap and so A in I Ch.]), and probably daughter of
the same mother (cp Jos. Ant. vii. 8 I) ; see M AACAH , 2.
According to Winckler (GZ2227f:), not only has this
Tamar’s name mythological affinities, but the whole
story of her being outraged hy her half-brother Amnon
is mythological. An old myth respecting Tamar, the
Canaanitish IStar, and her relation to her brother (to
whom TAMMUZ corresponds) has been transformed by
the people into a quasi-historical narrative. Note
especially Tamar’s cake, which reminds Winckler of
the cakes of Ashtoreth (Jer. 4419). See, however,
above, and cp ABSALOM. DAVID,col. 1033.
3. (&flap [B], Thamar, but paaxa [L]). a daughter
of Absalom, zS.1427t (vv. 25-27 late ; see Bu. SBOT,
Sam.’). Elsewhere we hear of a daughter of Absalom
and wife of king Rehoboam called Maacah, and
6 B A in 2 S. 1427 identifies Absalom’s daughter Tamar
with the wife of king Rehoboam; @L, indeed. goes
further and reads, not Tamar, but Maacah. If the
addition in 6.z S. 1427, relative to the marriage of
Absaloni’s daughter with Rehoboam is correct, one
would be inclined to follow 6 “ ’ s reading ’ Maacah.’
But perhaps the difficulty is not really existent. ‘Tamar’
and ‘ Maacah ’ may both be corruptions of Jerahme’elith
( ‘ a Jerahmeelite’). For the rest see M AACAH , 3. Thus
4891
TAMARISK TREE
two of the cases of the recurrence of a name in the
same family would disappear (see also MEPHIBOSHETH,
and cp Gray, HPN 6 J ) . T. K. C.
TAMARISK TREE is the rendering in RV of ’Zd,
$@&, for which AV has in Gen. 2133 ‘grove,’ mg.
tree’ ; in I S. 226 ‘ tree,’ mg. ‘ grove’ ; and in I S.
31 13 ’ tree.’ The variety of rendering suggests that the
Heb. word has an interesting history, and though it has
become traditional to render ‘ tamarisk,’ the critical
tradition needs periodical revision at the hands of critics.’
I. Apart from 6,whose rendering d p o u p Wellhausen
word in a generaZ sense, translating sometimes grove ’
or ‘ plantation ’ (Aq. 6evSp3v and GPvSpwpa (?) ; Sym.
(6wda, Vg. nemus, DVB Tg. Jer. 1 and 2, and Bey.
rad. 54, end), sometimes ‘ tree ’ (Sym. (6urbv ; so Onk.
Pesh.) or ‘oak tree’ (Theod. [rbs] +os; I Ch. 1012
a > ~instead
, of the 5$ of I S . 31 13). Such a view of
the meaning is supported by the Rabbis, and even by
Celsius ( 1 5 3 5 8 ) ; but the rendering ‘tree’ would be
excusable only as a protest against the cultus of some
special sacred tree (cp OAK)-philologically it is of
2. The tendency to explain obscure Heb. words from
the Arabic has led to the identification of ’ZfeZ, $@?, with
the Arab. ’afhZ, which corresponds phonetically, and
means ‘tamarisk.’ Of this tree perhaps as many as
half a dozen species are found in Pal. (Tristram, FFP,
250) : our common tamarisk is not one of them. The
common riverside species is T.Pallasii, Desc. T h e
tamarisk ‘is a very graceful tree, with long feathery
branches and tufts, closely clad with the minutest of
some of the Palestinian tamarisks ‘ reach such a size as
to afford dense shade . .. Beersheba is well suited for
the growth of the tamarisk; and we observed large
the site of Jabesh Gilead’ (Tristram, Z.C.). It is also
common in Egypt, where it was anciently consecrated
to Osiris, and bore the (Semitic?) name of asarLS
3. It may be doubted, however, whether this is really
the correct explanation. It will be noticed that
Tristram says nothing about tamarisks at Gibeah of
Saul. The tree referred to in I S. 226 was no doubt a
sacred tree (see H IGH P LACE , 5 3 and n. 6). In I S.
1 4 2 we read apparently of a pomegranate tree under
which Saul sat (see MIGRON). There is no probability
in the view that the tree on the high place at Gibeah was
a tamarisk. But if we give up ’&Z in I S. 226, we can
hardly defend it in Gen. 21 33 and I S . 31 13 ; the pre-
sumption is that the same word is meant in all these
passages, and that in all three it is corrupt. Now let
us turn to 6 s Upoupa (thrice). At first sight this looks
like an orthodox substitute for a word liable to he mis-
used (cp the Vss. on Gen.126, and see O AK ). But
how can 6 possibly have understood the phrase &#d-
TEUUW &poupav, if Upoupa means ’ tilled land ’ ? Clearly
Upowpa must cover some tree-name, and it has been
suggested that dpoupa may come from i p y or iyiyp,
which 6 ,like Tg. and Vg., understood to mean
‘tamarisk.’ Thus the harder part of 6 ’ s riddle is
explained. It remains to account for 6 ’ s reading
or l y l i y in lieu of 5wK-it is no mere interpretation but
a genuine reading that 6 gives us. There is only one
hypothesis which will do this ; i y ~ or y i y i i y is a corrup-
tion of me!, ashZrdh (Che.). This, then, is the true read-
ing in all three places :--Abraham buiZt an ashZrah a t
1 H. P. Smith sounds a note of warning. Though he renders
$WE tamarisk,’ he remarks, ‘As the word only occurs three
times, the species is uncertain.’
a 8 i d p m p a seems to be an error for Gev8pZva (see Schleusner,
Lex. in YT rv.).
3 Pierret, ’Dicf. GarciPoZ. 4gYPf. 534 : Maspero, Dawn qf
Civ., 28, n. 3.
489%
 TAMMUZ
Beersheba ;Saul sat under the asherah at Gibeah : the
bones of Saul and his sons were buried under the asherah sun, as regent. See M ONTH, 8 2.
Originally and properly Du'uzu or Dumuzu, is the
at 1abesh.l
m m was corrupted in one important MS. into iy1y or ~ y n y ; spirit or god of the spring vegetation; also, by a
in another into $WN. T h e idea of the latter hypothesis was
suggested by Klo., who supposes $@& to be a deliberate dis-
tortion of ~ T W Nin, ~order to discourage Asherah-worship. 6 ' s
d p o v p , acc. to him, is
,%:3 'the cursed (tree)'-again aprotest
against tree-worship.
2. 'ar'dr, y / y , Jer. 176 486f RVmg., EV H EATH .
TAMMTJZ (blmn), whose worship is supposed, on
doubtful - grounds, to be alluded to in Ezek. 8 14 (e&M-
1. Personality MOYZ P A ] , A A ~ N I[Om"]. Adonis
[Vg.]), derives his name from the
and cult. Bab. Dumuzi3 (4 R. 28, coa)-i.e.,
' son of life,' which, according to G. A. Barton, refers to
Tammuz as the child ofthe goddess of fertility, or perhaps
a true divine child ' ( =Ass. uplu REnu; so Frd. Del. ).
H e is variously described as the youthful husband of the
goddess IStar, as her son, and as the first in the series
of her rejected husbands. Every year, in the fourth
month (DGzu, see below)-Le., July-he descended to
Hades, and remained there till the next spring. His
disappearance gave occasion to drink-offerings and a
great 6iRttzi or ' weeping.' The ' motives' of his
legend and the meaning of his cultus can be fonnd in
the Babylonian myth of the Descent of IStar. There is
also an illustrative passage in the GilgameS-epic, Tab. 6,
where, among other lovers of the goddess who have
encountered asad fate,*Tammuz (Dumuzi) is mentioned,
' Txnmiiz, the spouse of thy youth, thou compellest to
weep year after year.'5 The discovery of Friedrich
Delitzsch and Jensen (Kosmol. 197)that 4 R. 30, no. z
contains a song of lamentation for Tamniuz is not less
suggestive. This is how the song runs, as translated
by A. Jeremias.
' H e went down (?)to meet the nether world, he has sated
himself the sun-god caused him to perish (passing) t o the land
of the bead with mourning was he filled on the day when he
fell into gre& sorrow.'
The word rendered ' sorrow ' (idirfum)occurs again
in 5 R. 48, col. 44, where, on the name of the month
Tammuz, stands the note-idirtum, ' sorrow.' The
Tammuz festival was in fact the idealisation of human
sorrow-a kind of 'All Souls' Day.' Hence partly
the strong hold which it obtained upon the masses.
' Dirges were sung by the wailing women to the accom-
paniment of musical instruments ; offerings were made
to the dead, and it is plausible to assume that visits
were paid to the graves.' I t is probable that, to
gratify the general sentiment, specially important
national mournings were placed in the month Tammuz
(sea below). ' The calendar of the Jewish Church still
marks the 17th day of Tammuz as a fast, and Houtsma
has shown that the association of the day with the
capture of Jerusalem by the Romans represents merely
the attempt to give an ancient festival a worthier
interpretation. The day was originally connected
with the Tammuz cult.' 7
The month devoted to Tammuz in the later Jewish Calendar
(174;~Ta'dnith,
. 4 5 6) was the Babylonian month Du'uzu or
1 I t is assumed here that the Asherah was originally a sacred
tree. But cp ASHERAH.
a Siegfr.-Sta. agree so far as Gen. Lc. is concerned.
3 The form TamQz; has also been found in the personal name
Ur(?).(ilu) Tamuzu (Jensen, in Kraetzschnmr's note on Ezek.
8 14). See further Delitnch, Hcb. and Assyrian 16, and in
Baer's Ezekiel, pref. xviif: ; Zimmem, Bussjsa&n, 26, 60,
and ZA 117-24zr5f: 2 270f:; Lenormant, 'Sur le nom de
Tammoriz,' in Proc. ofPar;S Co?zpr-essofOne-ntalists,2 149-r65 ;
Baudissin, Stud. z. senr. ReL-gesch., 135 3 ~ 0 8; G. A. Barton,
Semitic Origins ( ~ y m )p:, 86 ; Zimmern, K A T(3),3 9 7 8
4 For parallels to this view of IStar in mythology and folklore
(including that in Tobit38) see Stucken, Asfralmyfkcn,16.
5 Jeremias, Zzdubar-Nimrod, 24 ; cp Maspero, Dawn of
Civ. 580, 672; Jastrow, Rel. Bad. Ass. 482.
6 Up. c i f .50 ; hut cp on one part of the song Jensen, Kosmol.
nr6.
7 Jastrow, ReZ. Bad. Ass. 682.
4893
TAMMUZ
Ddzu, which was assigned to Ninib, the god of the hot midday
natural sequence, he is the lord, and his sister Bilili
(see B ELIAL, 9 2 ) is the lady, of the underworld, the
region of growth, though also the place of the dead.2
But it was not possible to keep this conception in its
purity ; it was natural to identify the vegetation spirit
with the sun, and to treat Du'uzu as a manifestation of
the solar deity (Ninib). For the drama of the sun is
similar to that of plant-life ; after the summer solstice
the sun seems gradually to lose its strength, and at
length to die, till at the winter solstice it is born again.
Originally too, the Du'uzu story was distinct from the
Adonis and the Osiris stories ; but at an early date the
distinction was forgotten (A DONIS , § 2). The identity
of Tammuz and Adonis is asserted by JeromeS and
other fathers (see ASHTORETH, 5 2, with n. 3).
According to Robertson Smith the wailing for
Tammuz was not originally connected with the death of
vegetation, but was a ceremony of mourning for some
sacrificial victim, such as is performed among the Todas
of S . India to this day. Later, a different explanation
was sought for the wailing-one more in harmony with
advancing civilisation-and the rite was projected into
the myth of the death of Tammuz. Robertson Smith
also thinks that the yearly mourning for Tammuz-Adonis
is the closest parallel in form to the humiliation of the
Hebrew Day of Atonement (Rel. Sem.C'), 411, cp 414).
T o this view G. A. Barton (Sex. Or. 114) assents. T h e
story of Adapa, however (KRGr, p. 9 7 ; cp astrow Re(.
Ba6. Ass. 549) discloses an earlier form of the Jaammu&yth
according to 4hich Tammuz did not go into the death-world
on leaving the earth, but ascended to the gate of Anu, where
he was stationed ('as door-keeper ') with another solar god or
vegetation god called GiHzrida. According to Jensen ( 7 L Z ,
1896, col. 70) another ancient belief made Tamniuz, the god of
vernal vegetation the son of a6zu (the primaeval ocean).
Certainly Gudea' (about 3000 B.c.) mentions Tamfizi -abzu
(zuaba), i.e., Tammiiz of the ocean, beside NingiHzida (identical
with Gekida, mentioned above) ; compare, however, Jastrow
(A'BA g6), who deprecates fusing the two TammBz-deities, and
Barton (Sem. Or. Z I I ~ ) , who makes this deity a goddess.
W e now turn to the single express reference to
Tammuz in the MT. It occurs in the description of
2. OT traces. heathen rites practised in the temple,
which Ezekiel in his captivity professes
to have seen when in the ecstatic state. First among
these rites-according to Toy's explanation of chap. 8-
comes (perhaps) an Asherah-image (u. 5). Next, the
secret worship of reptiles and beasts, probably forms of
old- Israelitish worship ( v . I O ). Next, the women
weeping for Tammuz (v. 14). Next, twenty-five men
worshipping the sun in the east (u. 16). The last form
of heathenism (as most explain 71. 17) is not recognised
as such by Toy, but we have to mention it here for
completeness ; it is 'stretching out the branch to the
nose.'4 According to Toy, the sun-worship of the
1 See Jensen, Kosmol. 197, 227, but especially Frazer, GBP)
2 1 1 5 8 Barton thinks that the goddess IStar was originally
connected with some never-failing spring, and that some sacred
tree near it represented her son (Sem. Or. 86).
2 Jensen Kosinol 2 2 5 ; cp Jastrow, R B A 575. Bilili is the
world-prindiple of generation and growth.
3 There is a remarkable statement of Jerome (ed. Vallarsi,
1321) 'Bethlehem nun; nostram . . . lucus inumbrabat
Thanks id est Adonidis. Just before, he tells us that this cult
of Ado& has lasted ahout 180 years, from the times of Hadrian
to the empire of Constantine. Evidently he regarded the
Adonis cult practised in the reputed grove of the Nativity as a
deliberate profanation. I t is not probable however that any
such profanation would have been committed in t i e time of
Hadrian ; it was the Jews, not the Christians, who were at that
time the objects of heathen persecution. And we may assume
that the predominant element in the cultus in the cave a t
Bethlehem was not connected with Tammuz-Adonis, but rather
with Isis and Sarapis, just as at Byblus the legend of Astarte
and Adonis became fused -th that of Isis and Osiris (cp Conradi,
Kindheitsgeschicitej u s , 315 f: ; Usener, ReL-gerch. Unter-
such. 1 202).
4 Toy takes nTini (v. 17) in the sense of 'stench,' and renders,
'they are sending a stench to my nostrils' ($ .7)!. Kraetr
4894
 TANACH
Jews was probably borrowed from Assyria, so that
Tammuz-worship and sun-worship would naturally be
mentioned together.
Plausible as this is, a critical scepticism appears justifiable. TEC$W [VI, TOXOAC uos. Ant. xiii. 13, 5 151, Ceyho
I t is strange that I)nnn should occur nowhere else in the OT.
I n Ezek. 8 5 nujpn is certainly corrupt ; this may reasonably
make us suspect rinnn. First of all however, the whole context
should be critically examined. T h e most obvious corrections
(if we presuppose some very constant types of corruption) are
those in zr. IO, on which see S HAPHAN . From the probably
true text of this verse we may divine that the whole description
of which it forms part relates to heathen rites of Jerahmeelite or iii. 1 8 , n. 5 ) is geographically possible, but is phonetically
N. Arabian origin. Elsewhere (see Cn’f. Bi6.) the text of v. 14
is corrected, and a reference to the cult of the N. Arabian
goddess is supposed. See however also HADAD-RIMMON
where a reference to Tammiiz-worship is suspected to exist bot;
here and in Zech 12 TI. For a generally supposed reference to
the parallel cult of Adonis, see G ARDEN $ 8 ; and cp NAAMAN.
According to Ewald, the ‘desire of worh&’ mentioned in Dan.
11 37 is Tammuz-Adonis.
It is maintained by Stucken and Winckler that
features of the Tammuz, Adonis, and Osiris myths
have attached themselves to certain legendary Israelitish
heroes. Thus Abram and Sarai, brother and sister, as
well as husband and wife, also Amnon and Taniar,
suggest comparison with Tammuz and Igtarl (see
Stucken, A d r a Z m y t h n , 1 1 ; Wi. GZ223, 227J cp
l o s f . , and T A M A K , 2). The story of Joseph devoured
by a wild beast, also the detail about Moses in the ark of
bulrushes (see, however, MOSES, 5 3). suggest respectively
the Adonis and the Osiris myth. David, the beautiful
young shepherd, also reminds one of Tammuz or
Adonis. Many critics may be inclined to admit that
the details here mentioned (Winckler has much more to
mention besides) are of mythic origin ; but to connect
them directty with the Babylonian myth of Dazu seems
to be at present a somewhat bold hypothesis. That the
mourning for Jephthah’s daughter is analogous to the
Tammuz wailing is, however, beyond the possibility of
doubt (see col. 2362). T. K. C.
TANACH (q!pn), Josh. 2125 AV, RV T S A N A C H .
TANHUMETH (nplll2q; cp
the Talm. pr. name
Tanhum), of S ERAIAH [q.v.] (2 K. 25 23 :
father
eaN€Mae P I 9 -MAN [AI, eaNssMMae [L]; Jer.
4 0 8 ; e&NA€MaleCBI, 8aNA€M€e[AQI, NAB- [RI).
The name, though possibly (cp Nahum in OS) early explained
as comfort’ (cp 0 6 2 ; pointed so as to exclude a woman’s
name ?), may, according to analogies ( e g . Rehum, connected
with Jerahme’el), come from an ethnic of the Negeb (cp
N AHAMANI ). In z K. Seraiah b. Tanhumeth is called a
Netophathite; but tho present writer takes N a htuhite to be
meant (cp NETOPHAHtie., he belonged, like (pro!ably) his com-
panions, to the Negeb. In Jer. the designation is alrparenfZy
given to certain ‘sons of EPHAI’ (q.~.). But ,ary $32 (as Kt.) is
a corrupt duplication of >ngioj. Cp Crit. Bib. on Jer. 40 I 5
where it is argued that Gedaliah‘s Mizpah may have bee;
Zarephath in the Negeb. T. K. C.
TANIS ( T ~ N B W C[BA]) Judithlxo. See ZOAN.
TANNER, TANNING. See LEATHER.
TAPESTRY (WlJ7n, marbaddim), RV ‘ Carpets,’
AV ‘ coverings,’ RVmg. ‘ cushions,’ of tapestry are men-
tioned in Pr. 7 16 31zzT. See E MBROIDERY, W EAVING .
TAPHATH (net?, 5 78), ‘daughter of Solomon,’
wife of one of the king’s prefects (see B EN - ABINADAB ),
I K. 4 11 ( T A B h H & l CBI. -Ohel [Ra” vid’l-T A B A b e
[L], TAC$A?A [A]). Probably. however, it was a
Salmzan ( ~ . e .Arabian)
, woman who is meant ; point
n$@. So in ZJ. 15. Her name wa5 perhaps Naphtu-
hith (cp § 78) ; and her husband‘s prefecture may have
schmar agrees with this and finds in v. 17 a contemptnous
reference to the sacrifices bf the ‘high places,’ which gave forth
to Yahwe no ‘sweet savour.’ Most see a reference to the
8uresinu, or bundle of branches of flowering trees, held by
worshippers of the solar fire in the Parsee religion (see Y e d i n a d
19 64, Spiegel, Eran. Alferfh.3 571). Cp a Cyprian parallel in
Ohnefalsch - Richter KVpros 137 j ? -
Clermont Ganneau
(ktua‘es d’avc~bol.o;ienfaZc, zb [1880])supposes snme rite in the
mysteries of Adonis. This would require us to transfer the last
clause of 2). 17 to the end of v. rq.
1 Thongh strictly the sister of Tammuz was Bilili.
4895
TARALAH
comprised all n y nma3, Naphtoah-arsb. See CYZX
Bib. ; also SALMAH. T. K. C.
TAPHON [AvJ or TEPHON [RV] T&WN [AN],
[Vet. Lat.], Syr. a+). One of the ‘ strong cities ’
in JudEa fortified by Bacchides ; I Macc. 950. The
name is a corruption either of Tappuah (cp Josh. 168
BE), in which case BETH-TAPPUAH (q.v.) may be meant,
or of NETOPHAH ( q . ~ . ) . The latter view (Gra. Gesch.(4)
perhaps rather less natural.
TAPPUAH (nBn; § 103, cp APPLE and F RUIT ,
5 12).
I . A place grouped with Zanoah, En-gannim, and
Enam among the towns of the lowland of Judah
(Josh. 15 3 4 ) , and connected apparently with Hebron
(I Ch. 243). (In Josh. cXov6wB [B?], a8ra6aap [A],
Ba$+oua [L]; in r Ch. Balrour [B], Ba+$ou [A],
cpeBpou8 [L]). Perhaps, however, ‘ Tappuah and
Enam should rabher be ‘and Tappuah [of] Enam,’
and the same place may be referred to in Gen. 3814
(read ‘ a t Tappuah of Enaim ’) and in Josh. 159 181:
(read for ‘ unto the fountain of the waters of NEPHTOAH,
‘unto Nephtoah, or Tappuah, roof3 Enam’). In all
these passages there is most probably a geographical
confusion dne to the redactors-Le. the place originally
intended was in the Negeb (cp SOCOH, Z ANOAH , ZORAH).
Very possibly, too, Tappiiah is a popular distortion of
Nephtoah or Naphtoah, the name the present writer
supposes to underlie the difficult ‘ Naphtuhim ’ in Gen.
1013. See MIZRAIM,5 2b, where Gen.1013J is ex-
plained in the light of the theory that 0 3 i m is very often
not MiSraini, Egypt,’ but MiSrim, the MuSri on the N.
Arabian border of Palestine.
2. A place which appears once (see below) at a
critical point of the history of Israel, situated on the
border between Ephraim and Manasseh (see K ANAH ),
Josh. 168 178. In 177 it is called EN-TAPPUAH, and
in the next verse we are told that the land or district of
Tappuah belonged to Manasseh, but Tappuah itself to
the b n e Ephraim. This is inserted to account for the
expression in v. 7, ‘and (then) the border goes along
southward to the inhabitants ( =the district) of En-
tappuah. ’ Conder ( Hu‘bK. 263) identifies En-Tdppuah
or Tappuah with a spring near YcZsGf, at the head of a
branch of the WcZdy KcZnah, S . of Shechem and of
Michmethath. Robinson, however, and formerly
Conder (PEFQ, 1877, p. 48). connected it with
Kh.’A@fi and Guerin ( S u m . 1259)with ‘Ain eZ-FcZri‘ah,
both NE. of NEblus. . I n each case the identification
depends on the situation assigned to the torrent K ANAH .
Probably enough there was a northern Tappuah ; but
the name ( a distortion of Naphtoah) comes from the
Negeb. It is historically unsafe to suppose that the
northern Tappuah was the city so cruelly treated by
Menahem in his hour of victory, 2 K. 15 16 (see
TIPHSAH).
(@ 7a+ou, rqyilv e 4 0 d [va+s0 a b, mg.], 0aO.B [Bl ; e++oue,
“1 $ V 9d+o0, 0a4000 [A]; Oa&&
[L$.
rrqyilv va+OoO, [9a+oOl
Dillmann holds that the Ephraimite Tappuah was the
royal city of Josh.1217 (aTa+OW [Bl, 0+$0u [A!, 6’arr+ou [&I).
With the preceding name Bethel the list of cities passes into
central Palestine. The present ’writer thinks, however, that
JpTh. 1 2 7 3 bas been recast by the redactor, and that the royal
cities are really in the Jerahmeelite Negeb (cp S HIMRON - MERON ,
T IRZAH ). T. K. C.
T U A H , RV Terah (mn; T A p A e [BLI, 8- [A]
EKapaB, [F, the preposition EK dittographed]), a
stage in the wandering in the wilderness ; Nu. 33 2 7 3
See W ANDERING , W ILDERNESS OF.
Probably a mutilation of Jerahmeel (cp TERAH) tChe.1. C p
M AKHELOTH , TAHATH, MOSERAH.
TARALAH (35y7n; B a p a H h a [Bl, Bapaha [AI,
e€. [L]; UereZa, theruma[OS(2)31z 15631 ; cp261zs]),
1 See A DITHAIM.
4896
 TAREA
apparently a Bcnjamite place-name (Josh. 1827), but
really, like ha-eleph in 21.28, a corruption of b l ’ ,
I RPEEL (g.”.), or of h l l * ,of which h D l * may be a
corruption (Che. ). See ELEPH.
TAREA (m.3c [sa.], m.vn [Gi.] in I Ch.835;
but u>gn [Bii.], mnc [Gi.],
EV TAHREA in 941f;
Bepee, eapax [B and K in 9411, eapee. ebpa [AI,
eapaa [L]), a descendant of Saul mentioned in a
(T.v.,5 9, ii. @), I Ch. 835=941.
genealogy of BENJAMIN
TARES (ZIZANIA. Mt.13258). The Greek word,
which does not occur in B, is plainly of Semitic origin. Its
Syriac form ziznri is (as Lagarde says, Sem. 63) equivalent to
z i n z a ~ ,and so derived from 411,which in Ar. means ‘to be
dry.’ A kindred word is Ar. (and Pers.?) zawan, which
denotes the,seed of dawsar-Le., darnel. ‘&“vtov is, according
to Suidas, 1 dv T+ &rc+ atpa ; the medicinal effects of alps are
described in Diosc. 2 122.
From the statements in Mishna and Talmud (see
Low, 133J ) we learn that DW, the post-biblical Hebrew
equivalent of {i@via, denoted plants closely resembling
wheat, alongside of which they grew, and were indeed
sometimes regarded as a degenerate form of wheat
produced under unfavourable conditions from the same
seeds. In view of these and other statements, it is
generally agreed that the plant intended is LoEum
temulenhrn, or darnel (Tristram, N H B 487, where
there is a good account of the plant).
I t is not improbable that ‘darnel’ has been associated with
‘white crops,’ especially wheat, from the earliest times. With
iiuperfect methods of cleaning the seed-grain, the seed would be
sown with that of the wheat. It grows to about the same height,
and would naturally be regarded as a degenerate form. Darnel
was long regarded as poisonous (cp Hooker Student’s Elora,
454). this however, is now attributed to t h i e r g o t with which
I t is’pec;liarly prone to be affected. Its rarity in England,
where it is only a ‘weed of cultivation,‘ is due to greater care in
the sowing. A native of Europe and N. Asia, it occurs
throughout the Mediterranean basin. N. M.-W. T. T.-D.
TARGET. ( I ) ??y, $nnih, I K. 10 16 ; see SHIELD,
I. ( 2 ) fir?,&i%n, I S. 176. ,See JAVELIK, I, 5 ; SWORD.
TARGUMS. See A RAMAIC LANGUAGE, $ 6 ; TEXT new sense appears to be defensible (Wi. A OF 1445f. ).
AND VERSIONS, 5 65.
TARPELITES (K!>BlQ E z r a b t ; T A ~ A @ ~ A A A I O I Josephus and Jerome, and in modern times by Baron
[Bl, Tap+. [ALI; bd), according to most recent writers not
a n ethnic name, but mismitten for N;?DjiU, ‘ tablet-miters’ (from
Ass. duj-sa-); cp Schr. C O T on Jer. 51 27, but see SCRIBG
Cp also APHARSITES.
TARSAISH ( ~ ’ ~; eapc[~lIc F I [BHA, etc.]-every
where except Is. 2 16 [see below] and 23 r6ror4 [ K ~ P - Assyrian inscriptions, has z instead of s.
XHAWN, (BKQT), XAPK. (B* once, K* twice)] where
twice has eapcelc as the reading of Aq. Symm.
Theod., and Ezek. 271225 [ K ~ P X H A O N I O I or xaplc.
W Q - A v. 25 adding 8apcoc)l 3813 [KAPXHAONIOI
(B) ; XAAKHAONOC (A), ebpcelc (pmp,vid.)]; thrice
spelled Tharshish in AV [ I K. lOzzBzs, 2248)). A son
of lavan, Gen. 104 I Ch. 1 7 (where mis-written nwvwin,
under the influence of n w 3 ~ ) . In a rela-
references. tively early passage (Is. 2 16) we find the may he, the sense ’ Phcenicia’ for ‘ Tarshish’ has not
phrase ’ Tarshish ships’’ as a synonym
for large, sea-going vessels. W e also find the phrase
in I K. 1022 (twice ; 65 vaDs PK 8. the second time),
224g3 Is. 609 Ps. 487 [a], and Ezek. 2725. The infor-
mation given us respecting Tarshish may be very briefly
summed up. According to Jer. 109 (later than Jeremiah),
silver was brought from it, and elsewhere, besides silver,
1 B,however, does not support the rendering ‘Tarshish ships’;
O a h h w q $ in a2v rrhohv Bahdwwqs [RNA,etc.] is an erroneous
frandiferation;for another case of this see Dan. 10 6 (8ahauqs
[ 8 7 ] = 8 a p w ~ ~[Theod.]
s ; cp Vg.’s 7naris in Ezek. 116). I n Talm. venture to reject; if Tyrseni are meant, it must be
Jer. MeK. 74a, w-w7n=Bar\dwuros (Levy).
2 Regarded as a redactional insertion (see Kit:el, Benzinger).
The Hebrew has ’n 95(collective).
3 Stade, Kittel, and Benzinger agree that (following 6) we
should read here n . 1 ~and n q ~ (singular).
n Note n i x q (Kt.),
‘ was broken.’ 6 B omits w*win whilst @A and BL have respec-
tively in their insertion after I K. 1628 vaih eir 8. and vaav...
e k 0.
4897
TARSHISH
iron, tin, and lead are specified among its riches (Ezek.
2712 ; cp 3813). It is mentioned with the iyyi7n (y!)
or ‘ coast-lands ‘ (Is. 236 66x9 [with other countries],
Ps. 7210). Jonah, when fleeing from the presence of
Y a h d , set sail for Tarshish from Joppa (Jon.1 3 4 2 ;
cp z Ch.9zr bis [rXoia PK 6. once], 2036fi-where
Tarshish ships have become, through the author’s mis-
understanding, ‘ ships that go to Tarshish ’).
The identification of the locality is difficult. Most
scholars since Bochart have thought of Tartessus
a. mere? !Taprvpmbr ; but Polyb. iii. 24 2, T u p u ~ r o v )
This wzs the ancient and,
Tartessus? in as S.
farSpain.
a s known to the OT writers, the
remotest goal of Phoenician commerce (see GEOGRAPHY.
5 106). Herodotus (4152) indeed places Tartessus
beyond the Pillars of Hercules ; cp Strabo315r ; Plin.
iii. 38. Elsewhere (2148) Strabo, with whom Pausanias
(iv. 193) agrees, makes Tartessus the name of the
River Bztis (Guadalyuivir), and also of a city in the
delta of this river, the surrounding territory being called
Tartessis. Diodorus ( 5 3 5 8 ) as well as Strabo speaks
of the silver, iron, tin, and lead of Tartessus. The
exact site seems not determinable, nor is it clear that
the Hebrews knew it. Cp SILVER.
[The name Tartessus was extended to the whole of S. S ain.
‘ As far as the terminus Tartesiorum’ is found in Avienus 86%)
and in the second treaty between Carthage and Rome we read
that the Romans are forbidden MawTlas Tapqlov p i Ah<ewea‘
2trixcrva (Polyb. iii. 24 3 t i . e . they are not to go beyond the city
of.Mastia in the land called T&seion=Tarshish. See E. Meyer,
G A 2 -7 (B 425).1
What is likely is, that Tarshish is a Semitised form
of the native name.
65 in Ezek. and Is.23 renders ‘Tarshish’ by
‘Carthage.’ 1,n its ordinary sense this name is of
3. carthage’l course unsuitable. But when the
Carthaginians brought the Phcenician
settlement of Mastia (see 5 I, end) in the land of
Tarseion (Tarshish?) under their rule, they made i t a
Kart-hadaSt (=Carthage), so that 65’s rendering in a
Tarsus in Cilicia is the identification adopted by
*. Bunsen, Sayce,l and-for Gen. 104-by
Tareus? A. H. Keane (who takes ‘ a son of Javan ’
to mean ‘ a n Asiatic Greek’ ; cp The GoZd of Ophir,
928:). The objections to this are ( I ) that the recorded
foundation of TARSUS [T.v.] does not go back far
enough, and ( z ) that its name, as given on coins and in
Le Page Renouf ( P S D A l8104-roB 138-141) advocates
the claims of the Phcenician coast, so that the uhrase
‘ Tarshish ships ’ would be equivalent
*’ PhCOnicia? to ‘Phoenician shim.’ This is in
accordance with W. M. Miiller’s explanation of the
Egyptian phrase ‘ Kefto ships ’ as= ‘ ships built in the
Kefto style,’ As. u. Eur. 349, n. z (cp C APHTOR ).
But plausible as this interpretation of ’ ships of Tarshish ’
been made out. It would appear as if this learned
Egyptologist had read the text of Is. 2310 too un-
suspiciously. Of course, too, the sense ’ Phcenicia ‘
for ’ Tarshish ’ cannot easily be made to agree with the
biblical references (apart from the phrase mentioned)
to the city or district of Tarshish.
Knobel (Gem C2J) and Franz Delitzsch (Gen.(5)) separate
the Tarshish of Gen. 10a from that of other Dassages. 1 Y .
6 , Tgrseni? and suppose it to mean the Tyrseni-ie.,
the Etruscans. This we mav at once
those of the E g e a n (cp TIRAS). These famous sea-
rovers appear in the Egyptian inscriptions as Tur(u)Sa,*
1 I n Exp.T, 1902, p. 179.
2 ‘It is safe to recognise in the TuruIa, expressly mentioned
by Rameses 111. as a maritime people, Tyrsenian pirates v ho
a pear in the old Greek tradition-by no means the Etruscans’
(E. M eyer, GA 1313, 0 260).
4898
 TARSHISH
and if they are referred to at all in Gen. 104. it would
be best to read there, not 'Tarshish,' but 'Turus' or
' TuruS.' If we take this step, it becomes possible that
the phrase ' ships of Tarshish ' may have been originally
' ships of TuruS' (em?). In this case the expression
.vould be very old, and be a monument of the times
.,hen 'ships of the TuruS' were no unfrequent sights.
.ater, TuruS might very possibly be confounded with
:he Tars implied in the Greek form Tapmjrov=Tartessus
;see 8 2).
It has hitherto been assumed in this article that the
:Iebrew text of the passages referred to is on the whole
,. The N. correct, though the doubtfulness of Gen.
ha,,ian l o 4 and Is.2310 has been alluded to.
beshur? Now, however, we must proceed further,
and take into account the fact that there
i i much corruption in the Hebrew text of the OT,
and specially in the readings of the proper names.
As a preliminary, we must separate the inquiry a s
to the signification of h z ~ y 8 f hTarSii ( w w i n n i w :
EV 'ships of Tarshish') from that as to the meaning
of Z P ~ where
, it stands alone, partly because most
critics (e.g.,Stade. G VI1 533, note) agree that ' Tarshish-
ships' means 'ships of the largest dimensions," and
partly because a close examination of the passages
where the phrase 'n n v j N occurs appears to show that
the text is corrupt, 'ships' being, according to the
text here adopted, nowhere referred to except in I K.
1022 2248 and 2 Ch.921. Confining our attention
in the first instance to these three passages, and more
especially to those in Kings as primary, we are struck
by the improbability of the language employed (as the
text represents). In I K. 1 0 2 2 we have ' a navy of
Tarshish with the navy of Hiram' ; in 2248, 'ships
of T. to go to Ophir for gold.' If we knew nothing
about a place, supposed to have been called Tarshish,
should we not suppose that v w i n represented something
connected with naval architecture or management ?
Should this consideration seem to warrant emendation,
no better one presents itself, perhaps, than D i i Q (Ezek.
27 2g)--i.e., the phrase ' ships of Tarshish ' means, not
our a East-Indiamen,' but 'galleys with oars.' I n Is. 3321
we actually find almost the very phrase here taken as
the original of 'n 'N, viz., w@ 7% (EV ' galley with oars ').
Turning to the remaining passages in which the phrase 'ships
of T.' is supposed to occur, we are struck by finding that here
too there' is frequently the appearance of corruption. In the
passage which, if correctly read, is the earliest authority for
this phrase (Is. 2 16), we cannot possibly avoid reading, at the
end of the list of'objects 'high and lifted up ' in lieu of 'ships
of T.,' 'palaces of Asshur' ( I1 'dwellings o i erahmeel'z); cp
Am. 3 9, where, as Winckler has already seen,J' Ashdod should
be 'Asshur.' Similarly in Ezek. 2725 Is. 609 and Ps. 488,
' ships of Tarshish ' should probably be ' tribes ( n i y ) of Asshur'.
I n all the other passages where this word occurs (the har-
monising must he due to an early editor), @,win (Tarshish)
should probably be emended into l?flr$# (Ashhur) or 1WN
(Asshur); an interesting proof of this is suggested by Ezek.
3813.4 By 'Asshur' is meant of course, not the famous rival
of Babylonia, but a N. A r a b i a district of somewhat uncertain
extent, also known perhaps as Geshur (see GESHUR,2). That
ihe Chronicler in the third century B.C. read w*psm,.and sup-
posed it to be a comparatively distant maritime region, is no
ohstacle to the theory here maintained, whilst an objection
rlramn from Gen. 104 (Tarshish, a son of Javan) would imply
that we possessed the Table of Nations in its original form (see
TIRAS, s 2). See Crii. Bid.
F.B.,§If.; T.K.C.,@3-7.
1 See however Benzinger's note on I K.10 22.
2 The' Jerahmielites also appear to be referred to in Is. 2 20
(see MOLE).
3 Alftest. Unt. 185, where, however, Winckler supposesa refer-
ence to Assyria.
4 We there find W'Wlp *$;]Tl? N ? f , where ' T I D almost
certainly represents l?ndN, and a t once suggests that the
following word 'in (which has no !) is a corrupt dittogram of the
same N. Arabian name. Certainly 'Tartessns' does not suit
ut all.
4899
TARSHISH, STONE OF
T U S H I S H (dr@ln).I. One of the 'seven (?)
princes' at the court of Ahasuerus (Esth. 114 MT).
On the sapuatlazos (uapiatleos)of BENALP,see SHETHAK.
If the underlying story of the Jewish deliverance is N.
Arabian (see P URIM , 3), ' Tarshish ' probably comes from
'Asshur ' or Ashhur. See TARSHISH (above), and cp
SHETHAR-BOZNAI.
2. b. Bilhan, of B EN J AMIN (8 g, i i [ a ] ) , I Ch. f r o
(papeuuar [B], tlapue6s [AL]). Here, at any rate,
' Asshur ' or Ashhur is the underlying original.
'JEDIAEL,' the branch of Benjami: to which ' Bilhan ' belongs
certainly comes from ' Jerahmeel ; so also probably doe;
' Bilhan' itself. Of Bilhan's sons, Je'ush (507 of Aholibamah=
Jerahmeel, Gen. 36 5) comes from ' Ishmael, ' Benjamin ' from
' Ben-jerahmeel,' E HUD (probably) from a?n>=inlN(Babnrim)
= $ ~ n n y' Fhena'anah ' from ' Cheniah ' (cp Coniah)= y p
(' Kenite ) Zethan' from Sarephath and 'Ahishahar' from
'Ashhur' {see SHEHARIAH).~ It will be understood that the
ethnics may early have become corrupted, and that the corrup-
tions may soon have attained a n independent existence, and
have become further corrupted. T. K. C.
TARSHISH, STONE OF (d'@lntlv), Ezek. 109,
RVmg.. The text of EV has here 'the appearance of
1. Occurrences. the wheels was as the colour (iy) of a
beryl stone' ; the mg. gives a needful
warning (cp T OPAZ) against trusting this too implicitly.
More commonly, however, ' stone ' (Pden) is omitted,
and the stone referred to is simply called in MT ' tar-
shish,' in EV 'beryl.' Thus in Ezek. 116 (nearly=
l o g s ) EV has 'like unto the colour of a beryl'
(etjm .
. . .- l?yx),
.., and in Cant. 514; 'set with beryl'
(d*tlni &?Q). ' Beryl,' however, lacks justification
(see B ERYL ), and in Cant. I.c. RVrng.suggests 'topaz'
(see T OPAZ , end), whilst in Ezek. 2813 AVmg. offers us
' chrysolite,' thus, as it were, connecting the Old and the
New Testaments (see Rev. 21 20).
'Chrysolite' rests on the authority of 6, which, supported by
Jos.(Anf.iii.7~Bjv.57),Aq.Ezek.11610gDan.l06,andVg.
(except Ezek. 1 1 6 Cant. 5 14), thrice (Ex. 28 20 39 13 [36 201 Ezek.
2813) renders w*win by xpuu6AiBdv). I t should be added,
however, that in Ezek. 10 g @ gives AiOw dveparoc ('n ]>N), and
that in Ezek. 1 1 6 Cant. 5 14 it is content to transliterate Bapmrr
(cp Symm Theod. Dan. 10 6 and Theod. Ezek. 109); also that
Symm. in'hx. 28 M Ezek. 1 16 109 Cant. 5 14 gives G r r v 8 o c (cp
Vg. Cant. 5 14, and see J ACINTH ); and that @ in Dan. 106 gives
86Aaua (cp Vg. Ezek. 115, and see TARSHISH).
The modern chrysolite is, of course, excluded. There
remain the ' hyacinthus '--i.e., the sapphire of the
moderns (see JACINTH)-and the topaz,
2. Identiica- which Pliny's description of the chrysolite
tions. as 'aureo fulgore tralucens' (HN374zJt:)
has led some ( H W B P ) , 3348, Del.. Kraetzschmar) to
identify with the chrysolite of the ancients (see, however,
CHRYSOLITE). For the hyacinthus no plausible case can
be made out. The chrysolite or topaz (?) has found
some favour because Pliny speaks of a large chrysolite
from Spain, and Tarshish is generally placed in southern
Spain. But Pliny also states that chrysolites were found
in .Arabia, and it seems likely ( I ) that the Hebrews
would have obtained precious stones chiefly from Arabia,
and conseqiiently ( 2 ) that if the name of the stone under
consideration were derived from a country, the country
would be some part of Arabia. Luther's identification
of 'tarshish' with the turquoise would therefore be
plausible if the name ' tarshish' could be traced to some
ancient name of the Wady Maghara in the Sinaitic
Peninsula, where the turquoise-mines were worked. But
the mere similarity of names is of course valueless,
and the Sinaitic turquoises so quickly lose their colour
that they can hardly have been much in requisition.
W e must, therefore, look farther for a clue to the
meaning of a tarshish.'
Let us then, as we have done already in the case of the
1 Cp I S. 6 19, where the original of @'s text (note [oil u b i
' I ~ x o v i o u )must have run, O $ i n.2 ' W ~ N ? 'T?? *>
qN i!
i; >],
'and the Kenites were angry with the men of Beth-cusham.
Cp SHIMSHAI.
2 Ebers, Uurch Gosen, 137.
4900
 TARSUS
"?us,pitddh (see TOPAZ), turn to the Assyrian lexicon.
It is well known that to the Assyrians the
3. The
deeyrian precious stone p a r excellence was that called
2lm&% (etymologically identical with Heb.
iln1esu7 &alliirnij; see FLINT), which is hardly the
diamond (Del. ProL 85 ; Ass. H W B s.v.), but may
perhaps be the white sapphire.
Here are two Assyrian passages given by Delitzsch in which
the name occurs : ' Like a ring of BlmZBu may I he recious in
thine eyes,' and 'a carriage whose wheels were OF gold and
flm2Su' (cp Ezek.116). I t is at any rate, possible that the
tarshish-stone ' should rather be the ' halmiz-stone,' 1 and that
the inferred Hebrew form &%\Q (Ass. nnrcSu) is equivalent to
the attested form &&tal in Ezek. 14 27 8 a (cp AMBER, S I).
Probably enough the halmig-stone is referred to again
in Job 28 18a, where riimith w2-gEbiS ( w q a nlmi) should
perhaps be [ * ] n i ~w) o h a and in v . 19, where a*nh
should be read for vi1 (see T OPAZ).
There is also, however, the possibility that v a i n [p]
or ' Tarshish [stone],' is a corruption of n?rpdy p!,
' Asshurite stone ' or iqn@ 'N ' stone of Ashhur ' (cp
T ARSHISH , 5 7). T. K. C.
TARSUS (TAPCOC,Acts 9 p 1125 2 2 3 ; Ethnic,
~ ~ p c a y 2cMacc.
, 430 Acts 911 21 39).
Tapuis (Attic rappds)= ' wing ' or 'feather.' The town
was said to haviderived its name irom a feather which fell from
the wing of Pegasus (cp Juv. Sat. 3 118); hut that was a legend
based upon an etymological fancy. I t is the n n of late coins
(with Aramaic inscriptions), and is mentioned under the name
Tarzi by Shalmaneser /Black Obelisk I n x r . Z.138 ; Scheil,
RPP),447; Wi., GBA, 196, 256) in the ninth century. For
stories of Its origin, see Ammianus, xiv. 83, and Straho, 673, and the intellectual life of Paul by the peculiar surroundings
on the name c Jensen, Hittitcr u. Armcnicr 1898, pp. 62$,
I&X [The Reracles of Tarsus was the Cilician god Sandan.
Dio Chry;. calls him the Apx do of the Tarsians (2 23). and he
may he identified with the B a of Tarsus named on coins. H:
was worshipped by the periodical erection of 'a very fair pyre
(ibid.), a rite presumably analogous to that described in the De
Dea Syrin. ch. 49-WRS. See RSP), 377, where Is. 3033 is
compared. ' On Sandan, W R S refers to K. 0. Muller in Rhein
Mus. 1829, and E. Meyer in ZDMG, 1877, pp:
TARSHISH.]
Tarsus the chief town of C ILICIA [ q . v . ] was situated
:z
identification, sometimes proposed, of Tarsus w i d 3 ~ ~ s h ~ ~ taught
on the right bank of the ancient Cydnus in the wide
1. Site and and fertile plain between Mt. Taurus and
the sea, thus commanding the passes
his to^. leading from Cilicia into Lycaonia or
Cappadocia. Almost necessarily also the route through
Mt. Amanus into Syria involved passage by Tarsus.
The city thus at an early date attained importance.
Xenophon (who uses the plural form, Tupuof) speaks
of it, in 401 E. C., as a great and prosperous city ( ~ 6 x
p e y d X ~ v~ u eb8uipovu),
l the residence of Syennesis the
a (Anab. 1z 23). In the time of Alexander
the Great it was the residence of a Persian satrap, who
fled on his approach, so that the city surrendered with-
out resistance. Alexander nearly died here from a fever
aggravated by bathing in the icy waters of the Cydnus
(Arrian, Anab. 2 4 ; cp Paus. viii. 283). After Alex-
ander's death Tarsus usually belonged to the Syrian
empire, and under the Seleucid kings Antiochus VII.
to Antiochus IX. was one of the royal mints. For a
short time under Antiochns IV. (175-164 B . C . ) it bore
the name ' Antioch on the Cydnus ' ( ' A v r r 6 ~ e i uapbr
T @ KciSvy ; Antiochia ad Cydnum) as we find from the
coins (see Head, Hist. i\'umm. 617.) ). For a tiine it
was in the possession of the Ptolemies.
Coming down to Roman times, we find that in the
Civil War Tarsus took the side of Czesar, though it was
to Pompeius that she owed her liberation from the
sway of eastern rulers. Caesar in consequence honoured
the city with a visit, and its name was changed to
1 ?.e., n and n, 5 and 1, 13 and p (cp old Hebrew script) have
been confounded.
5
a So, a t least, if n in n i m i represents in v&n. Otherwise
niDR7 may spring from m u i , which became first imi and then
inNi (with stroke of abbreviation). There is no inducement to
make niDN1come from mnyl (the ' Ra'amathite stone ').
3 Pysanias wlls it T q u e 5 Other forms are Tepu6s, or
0apuoo.
4901
TARSUS
Juliopolis (Cres. Bell. Alex. 66 ; cp Dio Cass. 4726).
For this attachment Cassius ordered it to be plundered ;
but, on the other hand, Antonius rewarded it with
municipal freedom and exemption from taxes ( i . e . , it
became a civitirs libera et immunis). But none the
less it was the seat of a conventus-i.e., periodical
assizes (cp Acts 1938) were held within it by the Roman
governor (Cic. Ep. ad Att. v. 164, etc.), though in
strict theory a a free city ' was outside the province and
the governor's jurisdiction (see further, with reference
to Tarsus, Philostr. V. AFoZl. 1x2, $r Tupuois 6P &pa
dyopbv lJyw ; and Momms. -Marq. Rom. Stantsvem.
180 n. 3).l Like Thessalonica, the legal position of
which was similar, Tarsus was the headquarters of the
Roman governor.
The freedom (li6erias, a4rovoFia) or self-government which
Tarsus enjoyed is expressly attributed to Antonius (App. Bell.
Civ. 5 7). I t was a t Tarsus that Antoniusreceived Cleopatra in 38
B.C. when she sailed up the Cydnus in the character of Aphrodite
(Plut. Ant. 25 A). But others attribute the status to the
bounty of Augustus (Lucian, Macrob. 21 ; cp Dio Chrysos.
236 R X A K P ~ V OLie.,
~ Augustus] 6r;v rapCuxe xhpjprv v b o u o
T L ~ $ Y.$ouuLv 705 rrora(l00 njs Bahwcnlo n j o ~ a @
aha&, thus
summing up municipal independence, freedom from taxation
and control of internal sources of revenue). Probably Augustus
confirmed in this respect the action of his rival Note
that it by no means followed that Paul's possession of Roman
citizenship (Acts 22 28) was a con-equence of the autonomy
enjoyed by Tarsus. T h e citizenship of Tarsus possessed by
all Tarsians who came within the prescribed conditions, could
never carry with it Roman citizenship (cp Ramsay, S f . Paul
the Traveller, 30J).
It is not easy to estimate the influence exerted upon
a. NT and circumstanEes in which he was placed
Tarsus was indeed renowned
references. at Tarsus.
as a Dlace of education under the early
Empire. Strabo 1673) even ranks Tarsus above the
other tMro great ' University cities' of his t h e for love
of learning. It was the home of eminent Stoics, like
Athenodorus the tutor of Augustus, and Nestor, who
, Tiberius (Strabo, 674). A remarkable feature
was that this zeal for learning was not an extraneous
characteristic, but was due to natives of the city itself
(Strabo, Z.C.), so that Tarsus rather sent teachers to the
rest of the world, then received students therefrom. It
would doubtless be very satisfactory to have been able
to trace in Paul's writings (as, e.g., in the case of the
writer of Lk. and Acts) some tinge of Hellenic culture,
some echo from the lecture-rooms of Tarsus : but the
attempt must be abandoned. The three references to
Hellenic literature (Acts 1728 I Cor. 1532 Tit. 112) by
1 ~
no means bear out this imagination, but are merely
floating sentiments of a popular character. Passages
like I Cor. 120 or Col. 2 8 would hardly favour the
probability of finding a tinge of classical culture or
philosophy in Paul. Even the speech in Athens, if its
historicity is to be accepted as beyond dispute, cannot
on an unhiassed view be made to support the somewhat
extravagant claims made on Paul's behalf by some
modern commentators. Seeing that Paul's teacher
Gamaliel was inclined to encourage Greek studies, the
fact that so little trace of such can be found in Paul is
itself an argument against attaching undue weight to
the Hellenic influences which surrounded his early life a
(see ATHENS).
This verdict. on the other hand. bv no means imolies the
denial of the foimative influences of Taqsian life upon Piul. In a
city which was in contact, both in the philosophic schools and in
its harbour with both the eastern and the western world ' which
entered intjmately into the general life of the Roman p r h n c i a l
organisation to which it belonged, but also retained the vestiges
of that vigorous municipal life which was 50 characteristically
Greek-in such a town Paul could not fail to gain that
1 On the constitution of Tarsus under the Romans, see the
details given in Dio Chrysos. 2 4 3 R.
2 [WRS, EBM, 23 676,presumes that Paul 'formed no higher
opinion of the culture of Tarsus than did his contemporary
Apollonius of Tyana, whose testimony as to the character of
the citizens (Vit. A?. 17) is confirmed by Dio Chrysostom
H e thinks that 'sensuous Eastern religion had more attraction
for the inhabitants than the grave philosophy of the Porch.']
4902
 TARTAK
familiarity with cosmopoli!an idea$, that knowledge of the
working of complex organisations, and that grasp of Roman
ideas and methods, \v:tich r u n s throuph hi, life atid work. I n
ahort, it is the Roman, rather t h i i i the Greek, that w e find in
Paul.
;\fter his conversion, Tarsns became once more Paul's
home when he w:is obligrd to quit Jerusalem (ActsOjo).
IIere he remained until brought by U:irti:thas to Antioch
of residence aiid preaching in
towns (cp Gal. 1 2 1j extended
over several years. Doubtless Tarsus w:is again visited
o n the second missionary tour (Actsl541); for the
Roman road ran from Tarsus through the Cilician
Gates,' in Mt. Taurus, giving access to Lycaonia (cp
.\cts 16 1 ) . Similarly, on the third missionary tour,
Acts1823 conccals a visit to larsus, on which occasion,
so f:tr iis the record goes, Paul looked for the last time
upon the busy quays and market-squares of his native
town.
'larsun is now T e r w . The ruins of the old town are con-
cealed I j or m feet deep in the silt of t h e river and nu systeniatic
excavation hi~syet been made. See Murray's ildb2'tR. I o A.If
rY4/ 'l'hr chief coin-type re>emhles t h a t of Atitioch being
the 'I'yche of 'l'arsui seated, with the river Cydnu, swhning
at her feet. The imperial coiniyc shows great variety of suhject.
Anlong lhr titlei are Y q r p d n o A t ~'EhruOipa,
, N & K O ~ O Sand
, 11pbh-q
peyLurq Kahhluq ypdtwarr Bouh<c. W.J . \V.
TARTAK (>n?n ; e A p e A K [BAL]), the god of the
people of Avvah (imported into Samaria). 2 K. 1731.
.
I'erh.qx Tartahu, the lance-star ' of the 13abyloni:ins
(cp nnm, lance.' Job4121 ; M T nnn), idcntified by
Jetiseti with Antares, and by Homme12 with Procyon,
iiiid regarded by thc Bshjlonians as the star of thc god
Ninib. I3y a textual error3 p m became 1n21, or
(perh;ips better, see N I B I J A Z p ~i , and by another error,
similar to that which has duplicated the deity of Sephsr-
vaiin, made its way into the text, atid was even in one
furm of the text (sce &?3L)4 :issigned to the people of the
imaginary city of HENA[ q . ~ . in ] order to leave Sibhaz
for the .\vvitcs.
If, however (cp SUCCOTH-IIENOTH), the colonists of ~'IDQ,
Shimrnn, came from the non-Israelite Negeb, both idibhaz
(Nihharu':) may he a corruption of Jerahmeel and Tartak of
Terah (a distorted form of Jerah= Jerahmeel (we C'rit. Bib.).
'r. K. c.
TARTAN (1gln; i n 2 K. 8 A N e A N [Bl. f h p e . [AI,
T A N e . [L]; in 1s. T A N A e A N [BXC.a~ba.dC!*], N A e A N
[.U*:\]. e&pe& [Qn'x:]; ThauthLrn) is an exact reading
of the familiar Assyrtnn trtlc, tarlhnu, furA2nu, tartan,
which occurs in 2 K. 18 17, and Is. 20 I .
I n Assyrian historical times, the Tartan was the
coinitintidcr-in-chief of the army, and ranked next to the
kin:. 'The ofice seems to have bccn duplicated, and
there W A S a fartdnu inam' or 'tartan of the right,' as
well n taartirr7r J711ntVi or 'tart:in of the left.' In
hter tiiiies the title bccame trrritorinl; WC read of a
:trtan of Kummuh, or Coinmagcne. The title is also
applird t d the commanders of foreign arrnie3; thus
Szrgon speaks of the 'Tartan Musurai, or Egyptian
'lkrtan. The Tartan of 720 n.c. was probably called
Ah-iska-dnriin ; i n 694 R . C . , Ahda'. and in 686 H.C.
IhY-Einurbni, held the title. It does not secm to have
been i n use among the Ihbylonians. c. H. w. J.
TARTARUS, a term for hell' (so EV text) in
R\':'W of 2 Pet. '24. The Greek, however. has r a p -
T a p h a s = d s Tdprapou bl$as. Sextus Xmpiricus (about
zoo A. I ) . ) , speaking of the expulsion of Kronos by Zeus,
h.1s Karcraprdpwue.
Triprapoc occurs twice i n Job, vir. ( a ) in 40 '5 [zo], where,
however, rrrpdrromv i v 7; raprdpy muat he a n error for T ~ T .;u
T$ iy&i (3o G r a b a p SLhleuwer), the initial m p heing ditto-
graphic, and T (T) miiwritten for y (1'). and ( 6 ) . in 41 23 1241,
where r h 61 rdprapov +C i,9iuoou may represent crnn y p p
' t h e huttom of t h e a h g i s ' (see O i s r \ i e N . i . , 3, with n. I).
I hFosmd. 4 9 f l ; cp 15053.
2 /?A*. T 933' ; GRA 666.
3 The error may have been partly due to a reminiscence of
reran! ( p - , ~in21
) ; springs o u t of inn.
4 xar avspcc atwvs+ inoiquav S;lv eap0ar K& oi &&or
isolquav q v cShars<rp.
4903
TATNAI
Upon Job41 23 [q],among other passages, is based
the theory that BEHEMOTH A N D L EVIATHAN [q.v.]
belong primarily to mythological zoology. Leviathan
is in fact a reflection of Tiamat, the chaos-dragon (cp
DKAGON,5 7), and, according to one form of the
creation-myth, was cast into the abyss under ward.
But Tartaros was not properly a watery abyss ; it had,
according to the Greek myth, ' a gate of brass and a
threshold of bronze.' The essential parts of the con-
ception are depth of situation and (of course) darkness.
Tartaros was ' as far beneath Hades as heaven is high
above the earth' (ZZ.8 1 3 8 ; cp Hes. T h e q . 807), and
the Titans are even described as 'below Tartaros'
( r o h hrompTaplous), ZI. 14279. Analogous to the fate
of Kronos and the Titans was the fate of the fallen
angels, who, according to 2 Pet. 24, were ' committed
to pits of darkness ' (uipois {b@ou'). having been ' hurled
into Tartaros.' The allusion may be to the passage
on the punishment of A ZAZEL [q.v.] in Enoch 10, where
the vigorous Greek version (Syncellus) gives. .$1LpaXe
alirdv E i S Tb U K b r O s ...
Kal 6 l r L K d X U $ O V a d 7 4 uKbros.
For a more remote parallel see Rev. 202. See ABYSS ;
ESCHATOLOGY, J 89. T. K. C., 5 5.
TASK, TASKMASTER, TASKWORK. See TAXA-
TION,§ 5.
TASSELS (nu'?), NU. 1538 RVW, EV FRINGES.
TATAM (TATAM [BL], -MI [AI), Josh.1559, d
Between KULONand SORES.
TATNAI, or rather (RV) TATTENAI ('!?D ; TAN
e A N A l O C [L]; Ezra53 e A N A N A l [Bl, eA€le. [AI, 50
€IaNeaNbc LB], aNA€Ic€)&?. [AI, 6 6 A W C ~ T E
v. 13, T A N e A N A l [B], 8 A e e A N A l [A]), the 'governoi
of the region beyond the river' (see GOVERNMENT, 5 25.
Ezra 5 3 6 6 ) , called in I Esd. SISINNES ( q . ~ . ) . We
shall assume here that the present form of the text is
original (see, however, Crit. Bi6.. where this and other
names are disputed). According to Meissner ( Z A T CV,
1897, p. ~ g ~ f . this ) , Persian official is mentioned in
neo-Babylonian contracts. Here, in texts of the first
and third years of the reign of Darius, is mentioned
a certain US-ta-an-ni or UH-ta-nu, satrap of Babylon
and Syria. The dates agree, and also the titles
( ~ im m y nna, pigat d i u ndri). The name corre-
sponds to old Pers. ViStana. and appears in a Greek
form as B~uBdCv~s (Am. iii. 194),' I u T ~ v * / s (Arr. vii. 64),
and 'Tur&v*/s (Herod.-777). On the other hand,
it is a much easier transition to 7jnn from old Pers.
Thithina (a form assuhed by Marq. Fund. 52, and
E. Meyer, Entst. des. Jud. 32) than from old Pers.
ViHtana, for we have, on Meissner's hypothesis, to
suppose that 'Jnn was corrupted from 33n01. According
to Arrian, however (vii.64). there were two con-
temporary persons named respectively Sisines and
Histanes. May not the document from which the
name of the Syrian satrap in Ezra and Nehemiah is
derived have confounded the two names? As to the
historicity of what is told us of Tattenai and Shethar-
bozenai, we must draw a distinction between the
narrative and the inserted documents on which the
narrative is supposed to be based. According to Well-
hausen ( G G A 1897, no. 2). the official correspondence is
but an invention for dramatic effect. Sisines (Tatnai).
for instance, attempted to get the building of the temple
interrupted, and failed. Rut the Jewish writers had no
access to official archives. The same view is taken by
Kosters (HeusteZ, 29). Marquart, however (Fund.
49), thinks that the 'kernel' of the decree of D a r k
may be genuine, whilst Meyer (Entst. des Iud. 41-53)
maintains that the documents are almost entirely
genuine, and the narrative therefore in the highest
1 C J.ide6, 3 r b <d+ov, 'under darkness' (cp Enoch105,
above! The reading ueipats ('chains') is not accepted by
editors (see Var. Bible), though both Jude 6 and the foundation-
passage in Enoch speak of bonds.
4904
 TAXATION AND TRIBUTE
degree trustworthy. The only passage in the docu-
ments to which this scholar takes exception is Ezra 6 I z a ,
which is certainly not the language appropriate to an
imperial decree. This criticism seems hardly keen
enough. Even the name Sisines, on which Meyer
relies so much, is very doubtful, and Kosters' and
Wcllhausen's criticisms are not altogether baseless. Cp
E ZRA-N EHEMIAH, Ej 6. T. K. C.
TAXATION1 AND TRIBUTE
The modern sheikh (8 I). Tithe (8 QJ).
Religious dues (E 2). Firstlings (55 11-13).
Monarchical idea (E 3). Levitical cities (B 14).
Political taxation (ES 4-7). Expenses of worship (5 15).
Sanctuary dues (8 8). Priests' revenue (5s 16-18).
The nomads of the Arabian desert know nothing of
tax or tribute, either to their sheikhs or to Allah ; so far
1. The indeed from finding a source of revenue in
modern their people, the sheikhs are under obligation
sheikh. to spend their own private fortune for the
public good. It is expected of a sheikh that
he entertain strangers and visitors better and more
sumptuously than an ordinary member of the tribe
possibly can ; his duty is to support the poor and to
share what he has with his friends (Burckhardt, Notes
on the Bedouins, 1830). Often enough it happens that,
even with a rich sheikh, this ends in poverty; but a
reckless hospitality always brings high repute. The
nieans for siich hospitality have to be found in war and
pillage. The Syrian towns and villages on the borders
of the settled land have to pay their regular ' brother-
hood ' ( & o w e )to the Bedouins. By ancient custom a
special share of the booty taken in war falls to the
commander; he has the first choice, and in old
Arabia was entitled to a fourth of the whole. In ancient
Israel the practice was similar. 'The only due, if we
may so call it, falling to the chief is a larger share of
the spoil; Gideon, for example, receives the golden
' crescents ' of the Midianites (Judg. 8 24 ; cp 5 30).
David sends his share in the spoil ( i d i d , %w, TGV
U K ~ X O V ~ from
) the Amalekite raid in presents to his
friends in Judah (I S. 3 O z 6 f : ) .
The offerings also which were presented to the god
did not origina!ly come under the category ~. of dues
2. Reliaous which were demanded and had to be
dues. paid. When a beast from the flock or
herd was slaughtered, there was no
question of a definite tax or- tribute ; it was a case
of voluntary giving. Indeed in the most ancient
Semitic ritual the notion of giving to a deity at all has
no place, or at best only a very subordinate one ; the
root-idea being that the blood poured out and the
sacrificial meal are fitted to renew and strengthen
sacramentally the mystic bond in which the deity and his
worshippers are united (on this subject cp S ACRIFICE).
A solitary exception would seem to be found in the
paschal offering. Following Wellhausen (ProL@)) and
Robertson Smith ( R e l 463 f.),most recent
scholars explain it as an offering of the firstborn of the
flock. If this be right, its character as a due payable
to the deity can hardly be denied ; and it is certain that
the paschal offering was, in the later period at least, so
regarded. Robertson Smith, indeed (Loc. cit.), seeks the
original explanation of this sacrifice of firstlings in another
region of thought ; the exact parallel to the sacrifice of
1 The verb Ae'gik (7'7Il) is rendered ' tax ' in 2 K. 23 35 EV ;
in Lev. 27 8 12 'value,' and 27 14 'estimate.' The subst. 'Prek
(T;?) is 'taxation' in 2 K. 2335; it occurs frequently in P
(Lev. 27 3 Nu. 18 18, etc.), where RV regularly has 'estimation.'
For the ' raiser of taxes,' Dan. 1120, mi& (bi), cp EXACTOR.
On the ' taxing, RV ' enrolment ' (Aaoypm#nj), of Lk. 2 2 Acts
5 3 7 , cp QUIRINIUS, J U DA S , TO. The verb droypa'+eoOat occurs
in Lk. 2 I 3 5 Heh. 12 23 ; Laoyp&+crv in I Esd. 8 30 (@L, in @BA
&arbypa+rjs, see Swete).
2 &iZ&Z is also a p o v o p f , e g . , in Nu. 31 32, and Apmzyvj [BRA]
in IS. 10 2. For other terms used see SPOIL.
4905
TAXATION AND TRIBUTE
the firstlings of cattle he finds, not in the yearly offering
of the first-fruits of the field generally, but in the law of
Lev. 1 9 2 3 8 , according to which the fruits of a newly
planted field for the first three years may not be eaten.
' The characteristic feature of this ordinance, from which
its original meaning must be deduced, is the taboo on
the produce of the first three years, not the offering at
the temple paid in the fourth year.' This same con-
ception of a taboo is what he finds underlying the
sacrifice of the firstlings of the flock. That which is
taboo has supernatural attributes u hich forbid its being
appropriated to common uses. This character of taboo
attached, he thinks, in the oldest times, in a certain
measnre to all domestic animals, and naturally there-
fore in an intensified degree to the firstborn. It
IS, however, hardly necessary to have recourse to this
line of explanation. Certainly no other instance of an
offering of firstlings besides the passover can be adduced
for the earliest Hebrew period before the settlement in
Canaan. And the passover itself, as is shown in more
detail elsewhere (F EASTS , § 2 , PASSOVER, s§ 9-11) was
not originally, or before the settlement, a sacrifice of the
firstborn. The passover ritual points clearly to the
contrary, and shows that under this sacrifice lay the
same fundamental ideas as under all the other sacrifices,
namely, that the blood of the victim was to renew the
communion with the deity, and thereby, in this
particular instance, be a powerful protective against
pestilence and the like. It was only in the course of
the subsequent development that the passover was
brought into connection with the sacrifice of the first-
born, or sought to be explained as such.
As already said, the sacrifice of the firstborn cannot
be proved, in the Hebrew domain, for the oldest
period ; all the probabilities point rather to the other
conclusion-that it was a secondary development ; out
of the custom of offering the first-fruits of the field arose
the other of offering those of the flock and of the herd,
and here accordingly we have only the extension to
animals and men of the deity's original claim to be
presented annually with the first-fruits of the field.
The entire conception of sacrifice as being a tribute
due to God is in Hebrew religion subsequent to the
settlement in Palestine, and on internal evidence must
be regarded as impossible in the earlier time, for it had
its origin in the complete revolution in the idea of God
which followed upon the settlement. The tribal and
national god became thereby a territorial god, and thus
came into the position which the Canaanites had as-
signed to their Baal ; he himself became the ' baal,'
that is, 'lord' of the land,-in the sense, especially,
that he was lord of the soil, and that the produce of the
soil was regarded as his gift (see B AAL ). This whole
view of the deity as the bestower of all the gifts of
nature is, it is obvious, possible only for an agricultural
people. As soon as this view had become the prevailing
one, however, the next step was exceedingly simple,
nay, it was inevitable ; thanks were offered to the deity
for the gifts of the soil, and he was acknowledged as the
giver by having the firstlings and the best of the fruits
of the e.uth returned to him in sacrifice. The Canaan-
ites had already come to this view of their offerings,
and the Israelites took it over from them, as we see
very specially in their adoption of the originally
Canaanite yearly festivals. All these festivals are agri-
cultural in character : they are intimately associated
with harvest, and the idea they express is that the
harvest is sanctified by the festal offering.
In the further development in Israel a new thought
came to be added. Once the monarchy had become
3. lllonarchical established, the monarchical idea was
applied to Ydhw& also, and he was
idea. thought of as the supreme king of his
people (cp MESSIAH, MOLECH). But among the rights
of kings one of the first was that of levying tax and
tribute ; and, as we shall see later, it was exercised very
4906
 TAXATION AND TRIBUTE
early (David, Solomon); cp G OVERNMENT , 5 19. A
main duty of subjects was and is the payment of the
king’s dues ; this principle was applied to the deity and
to his worship in sacrifice, as soon as he came to be
regarded as the king of his people. How nearly related
are the two things-secular taxation and sacred tribute
-is instructively shown by the instance quoted by
Robertson Smith (ReL Sem.(21. 246) ; at Tyre tithes
were paid to Melkarth as ’ king of the city.’ The same
thing is seen in the motives assigned for sacrifice by the
later Hebrews. The offerings brought voluntarily to
the altar are regarded as a tribute to the deity on quite
the same footing as the presents voluntarily brought to
an earthly king. T o the sacrifices offered during the
Hebrew monarchy equally apply the words of Homer :
6Gpa meieer, ~ p aiboious
‘ paurXjas.
One does not come into the king’s presence empty-
handed (Judg. 317f. I S. lO27), but, if one has aught to
ask, brings a gift of homage ; so, in like manner, when
one ‘seeks the face‘ of God (Mal. 16). Precisely
similar is the ancient Greek conception of sacrifice as
being the tribute and homage due to the divinity on
whom a man is dependent (Nagelsbach, Honzerische
Thedogie, 186). In the last resort, the offering comes
to be expressly called ‘ a gift’ to the deity; min&h
(Gen. 4 3 f . IS.217, and often) or korbdn.
Such in general is the course of the development.
As to the development in detail of taxation and tribute
4. political as political institutions the deficiency of
taxa’tion: our sources leaves us very much in the
dark. Under Saul we hear nothing of
special dues levied by him; he had no
capital and no special court, but lived on his ancestral
holding at Gibeah. Nor had he any state officials to
govern the land under his orders and receive their pay
from him. W e may take it for granted as self-evident
that, in accordance with ancient custom, he claimed and
received his special share of the spoils of war, as we are
expressly told that David at a later time did ( z S. 8 1 1
1230). We hear of gifts of homage, as, for example,
when he was elected to be king ( I S. 1027), or when his
favour was specially sought ( I S. 1620). I t is easily
conceivable that this source of income, added to the
revenue derived from his property at Gibeah, may have
been amply sufficient for the modest requirements of
his throne. At any rate, it is not safe to draw from
what is said in I S. 1725 strict inferences as to the exist-
ence of certain specified exactions in Saul’s day. The
passage promises freedom from taxation to the slayer of
the giant and to his house, thus presupposing the exist-
ence of fixed taxes. But this is evidence only for the
much later period of the author, or editor, to whom it
appeared self-evident that such must have arisen a s soon
as a monarchy had come into being. The same obser-
vation applies to the so-called ‘ manner’ or constitution
of the monarchy as set forth to the people by Samuel
( I S.810#:, esp. 21. IS), where also taxes, and, in
particular. tithes of the field and the vineyard are
mentioned.
Under David, and still more under Solomon, u7e see
the system growing. Under David, in addition to
6. David, the king’s share of booty ( 2 S. Iro 1230),
Solomon. prominence is given to the tribute received
from subjugated peoples ( I K. 5 I [421] z K.
34), and the voluntary gifts of subjects still continued to
come in ( I K. 1025). W e may, nevertheless, conjecture
with some degree of probability that David‘s numbering
of the people ( z S. 2 4 1 J ) was connected with the levy-
ing of taxes, and was intended to he used in regulating
their incidence and the exaction of military service.
The duties of the ‘governors’ (P~X?, n&bim, EV
garrisons,’ 2 S. 814) also, whom he set over conquered
territory, must essentially have consisted in the collection
of tribute. We are expressly told, at all events, that
this was the object of Solomon’s division of the kingdum
4907
TAXATION AND TRIBUTE
into districts. If the text (I K. 47-19) is correct, it
would seem that the king’s own tribe (Judah) was
exempt from dues and imposts (but see G OVERNMENT ,
5.1.9). However this may be, the purpose of the
division is given with substantial correctness in the text
as it stands (see special articles on the names of the
‘officers’). The statement that each ‘officer’ (or
‘ prefect ’) had to provide victuals for the king and his
household for a month in the year may owe its form to
a desire to show the glory of Solomon‘s court ; but in
substance the narrative is undoubtedly correct : the
chief object of the division into districts had reference
to taxation, and in connection with this to the ‘task
work ‘ or personal service which was exacted ( I K. 5 25).
W e also hear that Solomon levied toll on the caravans
travelling by the trade- routes through the kingdom
(I K. 1015). The complaint made by the people after
his death leaves the impression that his system of taxes,
besides being grievous in itself, was objected to as some-
thing new and unaccustomed.
We find hardly any other references to regular taxes
in pre-exilic times ; but the ‘king’s mowings ‘ are men-
B. La~Lter tioned in Am. 7 I (see G OVERNMENT , $19;
MOWINGS;and, on the text, LOCUSTS).
kings* From the fact that in post-exilic times tithe
appears from the first as an established institution,
we may perhaps infer that it was of pre-exilic origin.
The narrator of I S. 8 14f regards it as an ancient
institution. With this would harmonise the fact that
Am.44 knows of a tithe paid to the sanctuary. For
the rest, in the ideal state as constructed by Ezekiel
we find no such thing as taxes ; the prince maintains
his court and officers out of the revenue of the princely
domains. H e gives the princely domain to his officers
in fief. This also is an arrangement which we may
unhesitatingly presume to have existed in the earlier
times ( I S. 8 12). A property-tax was imposed only for
extraordinary emergencies, not regularly ( 2 K. 2335).
See G OVERNMENT , 5 20.
In post-exilic times a heavy tribute was exacted, of
course, by all the overlords of the country. Unfortu-
7. Post-exilic. nately we are without information as to
the nature of the taxes or how they
were levied. On the latter point, however, it is practi-
cally self-evident that the Persian rulers, like the Syrian
and Roman after them, availed themselves of the local
Jewish administrations for assessment and collection.
The land as such paid, doubtless, a definite composition
as tribute. Moreover, when it had a governor of its
own, the community had also to pay for his support,
as well as make a contribution towards that of the resident
Persian official in Samaria under whom it was placed.
That these burdens were not trifling can be seen from
such a passage as Neh. 514 : the governor drew 40
shekels a day besides what the ’ rulers ’ and their sub-
ordinates extorted from the people. If we find a
Nehemiah in public discourse to the people characteris-
ing this as severely oppressive and taking merit and
credit to himself for having drawn nothing from the
people, but on the contrary, having met all charges out
of his own private means, we may safely conclude that
the pressure of these dues was not regarded as light.
Besides these direct taxes were the indirect ones
levied by the Persian court : rents, customs, tolls, etc.
(Ezra 413 20 7 2 4 ) ; unfortunately, we are very in-
sufficiently informed as to the meaning of the various
technical expressions here.
Over and above these were the requirements of the
internal administration, and even if these may on the
1 [Of the three terms in E z r a 4 1 3 ~ 07 2 4 (Bibl. Aram.),
mindEh (a;;?, AV ‘toll,’ RV ‘tribute’) is quite general, a tax
for every one (Ass. mandaffu),be% (ih,AV ‘trihute,’ so RV
‘custom’), lit. what is brought (Ass. 6iZttc=Jh,), and h&ik
(qih, AV ‘custom’), a ‘toll’(so RV) exacted of travelien.
From the Ass., also, comes Aram. muha, ‘toll,’ and mZktsZ,
‘ toll-gatherer ’ (publican).]
4908
 TAXATION AND TRIBUTE
whole have been relatively light, nevertheless the
maintenance of the temple, of the sacrificial system, and
of the priests and Levites. must have cost considerable
sums. The voluntary gifts of worshippers were not
enough, and soon (under Ezra; cp Neh. 1033f.) a
fixed poll-tax, besides other payments in kind, had to
be established (see below, 5 15). On other accounts,
also, heavy demands were from time to time made on
the community, as, for example. for temple restoration
and wall-building ; in the latter connection also in
the form of corvPe, even if in both cases, as it would
seem, the voluntary character of the service was formally
retained.
The priests and Levites, and the whole personnel of the
temple, were declared wholly exempt from taxation by decree
of the king of Persia to Ezra (Ezra724). On the rest of the
people the burden of taxation pressed all the more heavily as
the community, broadly speaking, was a poor one. Thus, in
Nehemiah’s time the complaint was raised by many that in
order to uav the:r taxes thev had been comDelled to borrow
money a i d -mortgage their pkoperty, thus c6ming into great
straits (Neh. 54J).
Nor did matters improve after Alexander, in the
days of the Seleucids and Ptolemies. The principal
burden was the poll tax (Jos. A n t . xii. 41)of which we
learn more particularly from (Ps.-) Aristotle (Oeconom.
ii. 14) that in the Syrian kingdom, as distinguished
from the Egyptian-Roman, it was, strictly speaking, a
kind of trade-tax, a percentage that varied according to
the nature of the work and the means of the individual,
not a personal tax, uniform and unchanging.l
In addition to this there were now also other taxes,
presumably indirect, which Josephus ( A n t . xii. 3 3 ) refers
to but does not name. A characteristic example of
the manner in which new dues arose out of voluntary
gifts is seen in the crown tax which grew out of the
voluntary gift to the sovereign of a golden crown of
honour. The priesthood of Jerusalem were exempted
from all such dues and tribute from the time of Anti-
ochus the Great (Jos, A n t . xii. 33).
The method of collecting was by farming to the
highest bidder (Jos. A n t . xii. 4 1 8 5 I Macc. 1128 1315)
and, indeed, according to the same authority (Zoc. cif.),
the taxes of each individual city were let from year to
year. Elsewhere it appears that there were also farmers-
general of taxes for the whole land (see below). This
system was widely spread throughout the whole of
antiquity, and was adopted also under the Roman
Empire. Even at present it is in the Turkish Empire
the usual method of raising certain dues. The advan-
tages and disadvantages of the system can easily be
seen in actual operation there. That it is the least
favourable of all for the taxed needs no showing ; at all
times the farmers have known how to enrich themselves
at the expense of the taxed, since any surplus naturally
falls to them.
A classical instance, in fact is one that comes to us from
Jududaea. A certain Joseph b. ‘kohia, who, it ought to he men-
tioned, had the reputation of being very lenient with his own
countrymen, had acquired the taxing rights under Euergetes
and Philopator by bidding twice as much as any other com-
petitor, and paid the (for those times) enormous yearly sum of
16,000 talents, nevertheless accumulating v a s t wealth during his
twenty-two years’ tenure.
The question of immunity from taxes played a great
part, naturally, from the Maccabaean period onwards, in
all the dealings between the Jewish leaders and their
Syrian overlords; it was more or less identical with
the entire question of dependence or independence.
Jonathan was able to secure immunity from Demetrius
11. ( I Macc. 1134-37 ; see I SRAEL , $ 26),but this privi-
lege does not seem to have been long maintained, for
at a later date Simon had to demand it anew for all
time to come (cp I SRAEL , 5 78). We are unable to
1 It has been recentlymaintained by Willrich Uudaica, 1900,
pp. 52-56) that under the Seleucids the poll-tax w a s still a thing
unknown, that it was not introduced until the time of Augustns.
As against this, see the evidence marshalled in Schiirer, GJV(3),
1229,f
4909
TAXATION AND TRIBUTE
say, it must be added, how great a relief, if any, this
meant for the subjects concerned. Fundamentally, it
meant nothing more than a change in the taxing
authority ; the continued wars in any case were
enormously costly.
When the country became tributary to the Romans
(Jos. A n t . xiv. 4 4 Bli. 7 6 ) they at once took in hand
the system of taxation. Gabinius divided the country
into five districts-probably taxation areas after their
usual practice in subject provinces (Schiirer, GJC.P),
1340 ; cp ISRAEL, 5 85)-in which the local authorities
were at the same time the leviers of taxes. Here also
Caesar showed his friendly disposition towards the Jews
by respecting the sabbatical year as regarded taxation.
The Roman census and the Roman system of taxation
as a whole do not seem, however, to have been intro-
duced for some considerable time, the raising of the
taxes being left in the hands of the native authorities.
Herod the Great, at leaSt, paid sometimes (whether
always is doubtful) a definite tribute to the Romans, but
as regarded the raising of this sum he could exercise
independent authority as rex socius. Thus, he could
remit taxes wholly or in part (Jos. A n t . xv. 1 0 4 xvi. 25
xvii.21). We nowhere hear of a Roman tax during
his reign (cp ISRAEL, 5 87, end). The situation changed
when, after the time of Herod and Archelaus, the land
was administered by procurators ; the Roman taxes,
including the personal tax of the census, were now
introduced. The new division of the land into eleven
toparchies, like that formerly made by Gabinius (see
above) doubtless had reference primarily to taxation.
The procurators levied these taxes through native com-
missions. The indirect taxes were now also farmed to
the publicans (see PUBLICAN). From the N T (Lk. 191
and elsewhere ; cp 30s. BJ ii. 144) we learn that these
were mostly Jews ; intelligibly enough, they were not
popular : in the N T ‘publican’ and ‘sinner’ are
virtually synonymous (cp ISRAEL, 5 90).
On the whole subject of Roman taxation see Schiirer,
1 sa& and the copious literature there referred to; cp Qui:
RINIUS, $ Zf:
Sanctuary dues fall under two categories : (I) the
regular offerings at the sanctuary prescribed by custom
8. sanctuary or by law : ( 2 ) -the occasional gifts
w-hich the priests received for their ser-
vices on each sacrificial occasion.
As for the first of these two classes, it has been
already observed that in the old times no other dues
were known beyond the offerings themselves, as also
that it was only in a secondary way that the offerings
assumed the character of dues. To this class of dues,
in the strict sense of the word-that is to say, regular
offerings definitely fixed by custom or law, as distin-
guished from free gifts presented on all or any of the
various occasions of public or private life-belong the
offerings of the first-fruits of the ground and of the
firstlings of cattle. T o both these Yahwk from an
early date set up, so to say, a legal claim.
Even in the oldest decalogue (Ex. 3426 J ) it is made
a legal injunction that the Israelites are to bring to
Yahwe ‘ the best, the first-fruits of thy ground ’ ( n , @ N l
q n p t ‘:as?, T~W~EY&TU).’ The Book of the
Covenant (Ex. 2229 [28]) has the ordinance : thou shalt
not delay (to offer) thine abnndance and the best of thy
winepress’ ; the exact meaning of the expression is
doubtful,2 but the idea of first-fruits is not directly con-
1 BikkzZn-m being always a relative idea it makes little
material difference whether we translate ‘th; best that is to
say, the first-fruits of the ground,’ or ‘the best of thk first-fruits
of the ground.’ Still, as in v. 22 (cp 23 16) the harvest festival
is designated as the feast of first-fruits the expression dikkrirjm
ought, doubtless, to he taken as refer:ing to the first-fruits that
are offered and not to the first-fruitsgenerally, and thus equiva-
lent to rZEfh.
9 On the meaning of qF7; q& see the commentaries Q
has lrrapxdp &wos rrai AqvoO, thus taking it to mean the first-
fruits. Doubtless it was led to this rendering hy the parallel
clnuse : ‘thy firstborn son shalt thou give unto me,’ etc.
3910
 TAXATION AND TRIBUTE
tained in the words themselves at any rate, and neither
is the injunction in substance quite the same as that of
the old decalogue. There only the first-fruits of the
field are spoken of, whilst here, in all probability, oil
and wine also are intended ; there an offering to God
at the harvest festival is intended, here no such fixed
date is given. Most probably the two laws were in-
tended to run concurrently ; alongside of the precept to
offer the first-fruits of the harvest at the harvest festival
stood the other injunction not to be niggardly towards
Yahwk with the fulness wherewith he had blessed floor
and press.
Nothing is said as to the amounts of such offerings.
Apart from the offerings definitely provided for in the
ritual of the old feasts, it is clear that the amount of
first-fruits to be offered was left to the free will of the
individual offerer. In particular, J E has no hint that
a t that early date it was already the custom to give to
God the tenth part of the produce. Not until D is this
expressly laid down by law. As the taxes and tributes
payable to the king were, throughout, of older date than
those payable to the temple, so also the tithe was first
of all exacted by the state, and not till afterwards took
its place among the dues of the sanctuary.
Indeed, in the time of the old decalogue and of the
book of the covenant there is as yet no word of dues a t
all in the strictest sense of the word, but only of definite
offerings fixed by custom. Men offered the first-fruits
to YahwB in sacrifice, and in the sacrificial meal became
Yahwe's guests. This custom is presupposed in D as
still maintaining its ancient standing (see below).
Accordingly we have not in D, as in later times, to do
with a tax designed to fill the temple treasury, to defray
the cost of the temple worship, and the like. The
maintenance of the temple in Jerusalem, and of the
regular worship there, was the king's affair ; the priests
derived their income from the offerings that were brought
(see below, 16),and thus there was no occasion for levy-
ing on behalf of the temple any regular dues over and
above such voluntary offerings as might be made at the
sanctuary (cp 2 K. 1258). Further, in bringing his
first-fruits the idea in the mind of the pious Israelite in
early times was not at all that YahwB had a claim to
the fruits as being the giver of them ; his action was
dictated by the consideration that his whole harvest,
and all the bread which he enjoyed from year to year,
was pure and hallowed only if some part of it had been
received by YahwB. I t is one of the heavy punishments
with which the nation is threatened by Hosea, that in
its exile Israel shall have only ' bread of mourners' to
eat, bread that is unclean, inasmuch as no portion of it
can be brought into the house of YahwB (Hos. 94).
The sanctuary tithe is first met with in Am. 44, which
passage shows that in the northern kingdom it was
9. Tithe. customary, in the yearly pilgrimages to the
sanctuary, in addition to the daily offering
to bring tithes on the third day. The narrative of E,
dating from somewhere about the same period, tells of
Jacob's vow to pay the tithe a t the sanctuary at Bethel
(Gen. 28 22)-
D makes it quite evident that the tithe intended
simply means the first-fruits, of which the proportion,
roughly speaking, of a tenth had been gradually fixed
by custom. For in Deuteronomy ( 1 4 z z g ) it is enjoined
that the produce of the field (corn, wine, oil) is to be
tithed: hut, exactlyasin the earlier time (seeabove, § 8),
in such a manner that this tithe is not to be paid, so to
say, into the sanctuary, but simply to be laid out in a
sacrificial meal at the sanctuary. Should the distance
from Jerusalem, however, be so great as to make it
impossible to carry thither the tithe in kind, then ( v . 25f: )
'thou shalt turn the tithe into money and carry the
money with thee and go to the place which Yahwk will
choose, and there thou shalt bestow the money for
whatever thou desirest, oxen or sheep, or wine or
strong drink, or whatsoever thy soul asketh of thee, and
4911
TAXATION AN0 TRIBUTE
thou shalt eat it there before Yahwi: thy God, and
rejoice, thou and thy household and the Levite that is
within thy gates.' Now, this tenth is actually called the
first-fruit ( d f t h , nv@m)in Dt. 2 6 2 . and is accompanied
by a further regulation as regards ritual, which may
very well have been in accordance with ancient custom,
although the text itself appears to be a later addition
[see Steuernagel, ad Zoc.): the regulation, namely, that
the Israelite who makes the offering is to put a small
portion of the tithe into a basket, and set it down before
the altar of YahwB, and in doing so to make use of a pre-
scribed form of prayer.
Along with these general regulations regarding the
tithe D gives also a special one for the tithe of every
lo. Third year third year (1428J); every third year
the entire tithe is to be expended a t
tithe. home on the poor and indigent, in
which category the Levite also isincluded in D , no part
of it being applied to a sacrificial meal in the sanctuary.
In devoting the tithe to this purpose, also, a special
prayer is to be used, which is given in Dt. 2 6 1 2 8
This tithe constitutes one of the main sources of income
of the rural priesthood (see below, 5 17). This shows
that by ' the third year ' we are to understand not a fixed
date holding good for the whole country, but a relative
one, falling differently in different places or with different
families, yet always in such a way that every year some
portion of the Israelite nation was paying its ' tithe of
the third year ' for the poor and similar objects. It is a
debatable question whether by this tenth of the third
year we are to understand a second tithe every third
year over and above the yearly tithe that has already
been spoken of. The precept was interpreted in this
sense by 6 , which gives ' the second tithe' ( ~ ~ bE B T ~ ~ P O V
PTL~CKRTOV) for -ibyan nw, ' in the year of tithing,' in
Dt. 2612, and the same view is taken by some modern
scholars (.g.,Steuernagel). For various reasons,
however, it seems highly improbable. In the first
place, we should have expected in the text of the law
some kind of explicit indication that quite another tithe
than the preceding-a second tithe, in fact-is being
spoken of; but of this there is no hint. Moreover, the
imposition of a due of two-tenths of the whole produce
of the field over and above the various payments exigible
by the state would be something quite unusual and
unheard of, and not at all in harmony with the general
spirit of Deuteronomy. It is not permissible to evade
this argument by answering that the yearly tithe paid in
Jerusalem was not a tenth reckoned with any precision.
The exact opposite would seem to be the fact, if it is
remembered that the ' renewal ' in D, as contrasted with
the old law, consisted precisely in this, that for a sacri-.
ficial offering to be made at discretion was substituted
a n offering of which the amount was precisely deter-
mined by law, and that amount fixed a t one-tenth of the
total produce.
A later decision in Dt.184 further enacts that the
priest has a claim to the best of the corn, the wine, and
the oil, as well as of the sheep-shearing ; over and above
the tithe the Y 8 t h also. This again is not in the spirit
of D, which regards the YZJfth and the tithe as identical
(see above, § 8). W e have here again an expression
bf the growing claims of the priests, who in other direc-
t i w s also were dissatisfied with the revenues assigned
to t b m by D (see below, 13).
Thkcourse of the development of the offering of the
firstlings ran parallel with that of the offering of first-
For its origin, see above, § 2.
ll. Firstlings. fruits.
The law of the older decalogue in Ex.
34 IS$ runs, ' every firstborn is mine, and all the cattle
that is male, the firstlings of ox and sheep. But the
firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a sheep, or,
if thou wilt not redeem it, then thou shalt break its neck.
All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem.' T h e
expressionpPfer r&m (m: ma) means the first offspring
4912
 TAXATION AND TRIBUTE
of the mother, not the earliest of the animals born year
after year (cp WRS ReL. Sem. 462J). Here, accord-
ingly, even at this early date the demand is extended to
human beings and to animals that cannot be offered in
sacrifice. This is, in point of fact, however, quite
secondary; the original precept had reference only to
sacrificial animals. For it may be taken as certain that
genuine Yahwism was always opposed to human sacri-
fices, and therefore that in the law of the redemption of
the human firstborn we are to see not a toning down of
an ancient custom which had demanded human sacrifice,
but only an expedient for extending the precept relating
to firstlings so as to include men and non-sacrificial
animals. W e should also take note of the parallelism
with the first-fruits of the ground, and consider how
opposed to such sacrifices is the entire character of the
sacrificial system in ancient Israel so far as we know it.
Literary analysis also shows that the words in question
are secondary. In the original ten short words (see
D ECALOGUE , col. 1050)the precept probahly ran, ‘every
first birth is mine ’-a law which, as matter of course,
applied only to animals capable of being offered. See
further, FIRSTBORN ; S ACRIFICE , 5 3 ; also ISAAC,
§ 4.
In the Rook of the Covenant also, Ex.2229 [zB]. the
claim to the human firstborn is made ; but here, too,
the originality of the clause is highly questionable. T o
begin with, the position of the firstborn of men-between
the fruits of the field and offerings from the herd-is
remarkable. Moreover, it would be unnatural to under-
stand the requirement literally ; it must be supplemented
by the precept of redemption ; but this highly important
point is not mentioned, although in view ‘of the inclina-
tion occasionally shown by the people to offer human
sacrifices, it could hardly be omitted as too self-evident.
With reference to offerings of the firstborn there is added
the further detail that the animals are to be sacrificed
on the eighth day after birth.
W e know not at what date it was that the law relating
to human firstborn first became general. The deutero-
la. In D. nomistic passage in Ex. 1311f. presupposes
i t as a settled custom. D itself (Dt. 1423
15 ‘ 9 ) has nothing to say on the subject ; D plainly has
no intention of laying down a complete law about offer-
ings of firstborn, but only of settling points where
traditional custom had necessarily to be departed from
in consequence of the centralisation of worship. The
chief stress accordingly is laid upon the injunction that
this offering is to be made year by year at the place
which Yahwb will choose. This, but still more the
further command not to do any work with the firstling
ofcattleortoshear thefirstling oftheflock (Dt. 1520[19]),
shows that, according to the intention of D, the animal
was not to be offered exactly on the eighth day after
birth. That the offering of the firstborn was to be made
precisely at the Passover feast is nowhere expressly laid
down ; but the connection into which the two are brought
in the narrative of the exodus (Ex. 1 3 1 1 f i ) shows that
their union had already been accomplished at the time
when that account was written (cp PASSOVER). Since
blemished animals could not be offered in sacrifice it is
enjoined that they are to be consumed as ordinary food
under the same conditions as those applied to ordinary
slaughtering in D (Dt. 1521 8 ) . Substitution, or re-
demption of such animals, is not required ; but this does
not exclude the possibility that the custom nevertheless
existed, since D, as already remarked, does not start
with the intention of giving a complete law on this
subject. From all these considerations it is plain that
here also there is no question of a ‘ due ’ in the strict
sense of that word, but only of an offering. Like the
first-fruits so also ought the firstlings to be set apart for
a sacrificial meal in which of course the priest has his
usual share (see below, § 16).
It is on this last point that P makes a characteristic
change affecting principle ; all offerings of firstlings are
49’3
TAXATION AND TRIBUTE
now, for the first time, converted into simple dues pay-
13. In p. able to the priests, the fixed offerings become
mere taxes. Even Ezekiel (4430) had de-
manded for the priests the first of all firstlings of every-
thing ($1 .??s?-i?n.@m). But the Priestly Code claims
not merely a portion but the whole of the firstlings for
the priests ; all the first-fruits of corn, wine, and oil are
handed over by Yahwb to the priests (Nu. 18 1.8: ).
The
entire tithe belongs to the Levites, who, in turn, have
to make over their tenth part of this to the priests (Nu.
1 8 ~ 0 ~ The ) . firstlings of clean beasts are offered in
kind ; after their blood has been sprinkled on the altar
and the fat burnt, the flesh falls to the priests. The
firstborn of unclean beasts, and of man, must be re-
deemed. The redemption money belongs to the priest.
(Nu. 18158 , cp Neh. 1037). The amount of the re-
demption money is in the case of human firstborn fixed
at five shekels (Nu. 1816 ; cp Dillniann, i n Zoc. ). In
the case of unclean beasts the estimated value is to be
paid with addition of a fifth (Lev.2726f: ; certainly
secondary).
Apart from this change in the scope of the law, P
shows a quite extraordinary advance in the amount of
such payments. The firstborn is given to the priests ;
but the Passover remains unaffected by this. In the
case of fruits of the earth the payment of the r 3 i h is
retained as well as that of the tithes already enjoined in D
(see above, g ; Nu. 18 12 Z O ~ ) and,, besides the ’ best’
of the winepress and the threshing floor, there is de-
manded payment of the first-fruits (bikkPnin, n-??~?) of
all that grows in the field. What we are to understand
by this expression is not quite certain. The most
probable interpretation still is that which takes it as
referring to the fruits that have come earliest to maturity
(Nu. 18 13, EV ‘ first-ripe‘ ; cp the commentaries). Over
and above all this we find in Xu. 15 1 7 8 the further de-
mand that the first of the ?,D’!+‘drisuh ( ’ dough’ [EV]?
‘ coarse meal ’ [RVW.]? ‘ kneading trough ’ ? see FCOD,
5 I u),a cake, must also be given. In accordance with
this the post-exilic community drew a distinction between
7-eYifhand dikkzirf?n, and paid on both. In Neh. 1036-38
the entire community comes under a solemn obligation
to bring the bikkzirim of all fruits of the tilled land and
of all trees to the temple, and moreover to pay to the
priests the r&th of the wine and oil and tree fruits, and
also of the ‘drisih-all this to be, along with the tithe,
the portion of the Levites (cp Neh.1244 135 zCh.
315 12). Finally, Lev. 1923 enjoins that the fruit of
newly-planted trees must not be eaten within the first
three years, and that in the fourth year the entire yield
must be given to Yahwb-that is, to the priests.
Nor is even this enough; the decision preserved in
Lev. 2732f: includes cattle also in the tithe ; the offerer
in rendering this tithe must not select the animals :
each tenth head at the counting belongs to Yahwb. If, a
however, it should so chance that one animal has been
changed for another, both shall belong to the sanctuary.
Even in Neh.7037-39 (cp 1244-47 13512) there is no
allusion to any such law. It must, therefore, have
come into existence at a later date.
In real life such a tithing of cattle is impracticable.
But the legal theorist did not concern himself about any
14.Levitical such consideration as that ; he was able,
therefore, to put the copestone on his
cities. system by that extraordinary enactment
which assigns to the tribe of Levi forty-eight cities, each
having a territory of 2000 cubits square (cp LEVITES,
5 6). T h e impossibility of carrying out snch a theory is
demonstrated by any map of Palestine. But nothing can
better reveal the spirit underlying such legislation than
the fact that the lawgiver in the same breath in which
he assigns these forty-eight cities to the Levites alleges,
as a reason for the dues he is imposing, that the Levites
had received n o inheritance in land like the other tribes.
Another point deserves notice : in Ezekiel the people
49’4
 TAXATION AND TRIBUTE
already pay their dues as a tax to the prince, who, how-
~Expenses
. ever, has laid upon him in return the
l wholly inadequate in view of the increased number of
of worehip. responsibility for the expenses of the
public worship (Ezek. 4 5 1 3 8 ) . In P
it is the priests who receive these taxes ; but they keep
them to themselves : the support of the regular cultus
is not their concern. On the contrary, a further tax
has to be levied for that purpose : a poll tax of half a
shekel has to be exacted (Ex. 3 0 1 1 8 ) . With the spread
of the Persian monetary system the third of a shekel
found its way into Palestine, and accordingly in Neh.
1032 [33] we find the temple tax fixed at that amount.
The coinage of the Maccabees reverted to the older type,
and thus in the time of Jesus we find the temple tax
again fixed at half a shekel (Mt. 1724 27 ; cp Benzinger,
H”i 193).
As to the manner in which priestly service was paid
in the early period we know very little. At first the
16. Priests, priest was not so much a sacrificer as a
guardian of the image and giver of oracles
revenue. whose business it was to impart YahwKs
f8rZh or oracle to those who consulted him (see PRIESTS).
It may with safety be assumed that the priest received
payment for communicating the oracle, precisely as did
seers such as Samuel, Ahijah, and the like ( I S. 97J
I K. 1423). When a sacrificer came to the sanctuary
and arranged a sacrificial meal, he naturally invited the
priest to it, or gave him some portion of the flesh for
such service as he had rendered. But these gifts were
voluntary, and regulated not by law but by custom.’
T h e priests’ right to a definite share is not recognised ;
this is proved by the story of the sons of Eli ( I S. 2 1 3 8 ) ,
who demand a tribute of flesh, and even take it by force
instead of accepting what is voluntarily given, but in
doing so show themselves to be ‘ sons of Belial,’ heedless
of law and priestly duty, thus bringing the offering of
Yahwh into contempt.
It is clear that at the greater sanctuaries, and particu-
larly at Jerusalem, a.fixed practice gradually established
itself in regard to this, with the result that a definite
share of the offering and certain other perquisites fell to
the lot of the priests. As early as in David’s time, we
learn that the shewbread loaves in the sanctuary were the
priests’ perquisite, although they could also be eaten by
ceremonially pure laymen (I S . 2 1 3 8 ) . With regard
to a considerably later period we find that the fines paid
to the sanctuary for various (presumably ceremonial)
offences also fell to the priests ( 2 K. 1216 [17]). On the
other hand, the income from voluntary gifts and votive
offerings was to be applied to the maintenance of the
temple ; the control of this money was taken from the
priests because they applied the whole of it to their own
uses ( z K. 124 8).This was by royal ordinance ;
possibly tradition had previously sanctioned such an
application of the revenues. Finally, we gather from
z K. 239 that the unleavened bread, or meal offering,
with which no sacrificial meal was associated, fell to the
priests.
The priestly revenues are legally regulated for the
first time in D. It is not impossible that the practice
l,. In D. in Jerusalem lies at the basis of its provisions.
In any case the legislation had a very special
motive for thus disposing of the questions involved.
For by the centralisation of the worship the priests of
the high places and rural altars were made penniless. T o
remedy this, D gives the Levites the right to discharge
priestly functions in the sanctuary at Jerusalem, and to
share in the temple revenues (Dt. 186 J ) . But if all
priests were thus relegated to the sanctuary at Jerusalem
it is easy to see that the dues for offerings there required
to be strictly regulated and perhaps also raised. The
right of the priests as towards the people who sacrificed
in the temple nowbecamedefinite(Dt. 183); theshoulder,
1 I S. 2 28, where ‘all the offerings of the children of Israel
made by fire are assigned to the priests, is of post-deuteronomic
origin : cp Dt. 18 I .
4915
TEaCHER
the two cheeks, and the maw of every animal sacrificed
belonged to the priests. That such a provision was
clergy and the diminished number of offerings in conse-
quence of the centralisation, was seen by the Deutero-
nomist himself. The rural priests, accordingly, are
bidden to look specially to the sacrificial meals set on
foot by the offerers : but at the same time details as to
this are left to the charitable disposition of the worshippers
(Dt.121218f:). For the tithe of the third year (Dt.
1428f: 2 6 1 . 3 ) and for the rZfth assigned in a subse-
quent decision to the priests (Dt. 184), see above, 5 9f.
These dues to the priests increased in amount also,
like the other dues, in process of time. In Ezekiel
Later. ( 4 4 2 8 8 ), besides the minhah, the sin-offer-
ing, the guilt -offering, and every devoted
thing’ are handed over to the priesthood. According
to P the priests receive, in addition to the dues men-
tioned above (first-fruits, etc.), I the most holy things’-
ie., the minhah, the sin-offering, and the guilt-offering
in so far as these are not burnt ; they may be eaten only
by males of the family of Aaron, and that only ‘ in the
holy place’ ; what is left over must be burnt (Nu. 18&$
Lev.1012/, cp Ex.29328). So also with the shew-
bread (Lev. 249). Of the burnt-offering, the skin of the
animal sacrificed belongs to the priest (Lev. 7 8 ; this may
perhaps have been an ancient custom), of the peace-
offerings the right thigh and the breast (Lev. 734 Ex.
2 9 ~ 7 x ) and,
, besides, one cake of each meal-offering, of
whatever kind, offered along with these (Lev. 713). With
the breast of the peace-offering which belongs to the
priest is performed the peculiar ceremony of waving ;
that is to say, the priest swings it upon his hands towards
the altar and back again, a symbolical representation of
the idea that this portion is preseked to Yahwe as a
gift, but by him delivered over to his servant (Lev. 7
30-34 921 1014 Nu. 620). The thigh pertaining to the
priests is always designated as ‘ the heave thigh ’ (Lev.
734). This expression presumably does not refer to
any special ceremony analogous to that of waving, but
is intended to denote that the part in question is ‘ lifted
up’ from the offering as the priests’ perquisite (cp
SACRIFICE. $5 14, m u , 29a). The last-named portions
of the burnt-offerings and peace-offerings may be con-
sumed by the male and female members of the priests’
families alike, and in any clean place-and thus, with-
out the sanctuary (Lev. 3014f: Nu. 189). The slaves
also of the priest may eat of it ; but not (for example)
daughters married to ‘ strangers‘-ie., to men who are
not priests. And if a ‘ stranger ‘-say, for example, a
hired servant of the priest-‘unwittingly’ eat of it, he
shall pay to the priest the value of the holy thing with
an added fifth (Lev. 2 2 1 0 3 ) .
With further detail as regards the rights of priests it
is laid down that the guilt-offering and the sin-offering,
as well as the skin of the burnt-offering, shall belong to
the officiating priest (Lev. 5 7 5 ) ; of the meal-offering
he is entitled to all that is ‘ baked in the oven or dressed
in the frying-pan and in the baking-pan ’ ; the rest shall
belong to the priesthood as a whole (Lev. 79f: ) ; of peace-
offerings the wave breast seems to have pertained to the
priesthood in general, whilst the acting priest received
the shoulder and the cakes (Lev. 7 31 ; cp 7 33 14).
The more detailed regulations of post-biblical times will he
found collected in a series of tractates in the Mishna : TinZmbth,
Ma‘dYr8th, Ma‘d&shZni. ChaZhi,*OrZd,Bikklirim, .Sh@iEm,
BikarZh. See further Wellh. ProZ.(4) 149 and passim;
the archreologich text-bdoks of De Wette: Ewalf Keil, Schegg
Benzinger, Nowack, and the article5 ‘Erstgeburt’ and ‘Erstlings~
opfer’ in PRE,Winer, Schenkel, and Riehm. 1. B.
TEACHER.’ In the earliest stage of the Christian
Church the two most striking figures are those of the
apostle and the prophet. In several important passages
a third figure is found in their company, that of the
teacher ( G & J K ~ o s ) .
1 In the OT Hab. 2 18, etc., the word is 3JD; for later terms
see E DUCATION, 58 15-17.
4916