CONEY CONFESS, CONFESSION
Hebrew inscription extant (cp Dr. TBS xv. f.[facsimile
opposite], W RIT ING, 3 4).
1trunsasfollows:-‘(I) [Behold] the piercing through (nl~jn).
Now this was the manner of the piercing through. Whilst yet
[the miners were lifting up] (2) the pick (77>j) each towards
his fellow and whilst there were yet three cubits to be struck
through, ;here was heard the voice of each man (3) calling to
his fellow, for there was a fissure1 in the rock on the right
hand. ... And on the day of the (4) piercing through, the
hewers (o>m;?)smote each so as to meet his fellow, pick against
pick; and there flowed (5) the water from the channel ( N X ) ) ~
to the pool (n2~1) 1200 cubits ; and a hundred ( 6 ) 3 cpbits was
the height of the rock Over the the head of the hewers.
The difference of level in the bed of the channel is so slight
that one is led to suppose that the excavators had some kind of
test. Shafts were made here and there, probably in order that
the men might find out their whereabouts. The first shaft is
470 ft. from the Siloam end. After that the passage is straighter.
The conduit is the work of a people whose knowledge
of engineering was in its infancy. Its date is uncertain.
I t may be the one referred to in z K. 2020 ( = z Ch.
3230) ; but the allusion in Is. 86 to the ‘waters of
Shiloah that flow gently ’ suggests that it may have been
in existence in the days of Ahaz5
More or less parallel with this, but straighter, is a
channel, evidently connected with tbe Birket el-HamrZ
6. other (Red-pool), which lay to the E. of the
~onduits. Siloam pool. I t is older than the Siloam
conduit (see Schick, PEFQ, Jan. 1897).
T h e conduit of the upper pool in the highway of the
fuller’s field ( z I<. 1 8 1 7 ) is identified by Wilson with
the aqueduct which seems to have run over the Cotton
Grotto to the convent of the Sisters of Zion.6 Among
other conduits may be noticed the one which connects
the Citadel or Castle of David (el-KalB‘a) with the
Birket MBmillB. I t is possibly referred to in Jos.
BJ v. 7 3 , where mention is made of the ‘gate where
water was brought in to the tower of Hippicus’
(the latter is usually identified with the NW. tower of
the citadel).
For others, less important see the memoirs of the PEF.
Many remains of conduits, &ore or less well preserved, have
been found in other parts of Palestine. It will he sufficient to
mention the aqueduct at Jericho across the WZdy el-Kelt (see
os. Ani. xvii. 13 I, Schur. G,’Vl276) ; another on the road from
b amascus to Palmyra, not far from Jerod ; the kanit Fir‘aun
which crosses the Wady Ztda near Der‘n‘t (Edrei); and thl
aqueduct conveying water from ‘Ain epT2higha (Perrot-Chip
Art i~zJud.1330; Baed(31 291).
(See ‘Die Wasserversorgung der Stadt Jerusalem,’ ZDPV
1 132-176 (1878) ; Benzinger, Ned. Arch. 51 3 230 J f : ; Warren
and Conder, Jerusalem; Perrot and Chipiez, Art in Judea;
Baed. passim, and the many notes and articles in the PEF
publications). S. A. C.
CONEY (]e@, see SHAPHAN ; Xotporpyhhioc
[BAFL] [Th. and many MSS of LXX have harwoc
in Ps. 104181, Lev. 1 1 5 [in eBAF,
unless the order of
the verses is accidentally reversed, p d is translated
Guohrous] Dt. 147 Ps. 10418 Pr. 3026t) should rather
be ‘rock badger’ (,RV’”g.), the animal having been
identified with certainty as Hyrax syriacus--called in
Syriac (?@.risci and in Arabic &a6r7 (Rob. LBR 3387,
Tristram, PPP l J ) .
1 317, wholly unknown, is translated by Sayce (RPP) 1175)
‘excess,’ referring to a set-hack. For the, illegible part in the
middle of I. 3 he suggests ‘and on the left.
2 twin, like Ass. nzdsu, seems to mean ‘channel,’ ‘water-
course’; cp C O T 2 3 1 1 3
3 So most, reading ;1nN ~ [ N I D ; bot the surface of the rock is
here only about 10 ft. above the top of the tunnel whilst towards
the N. it is 170 ft. This reading may represent the average
thickness of the rock. Since, however, at the place of. juncture
(812-18 it. from the back of the Virgin’s fountain) there is a
differenceof height of just 13 inches, another reading nn.y njjln,
‘a portion’ [of a cubit] has been proposed (cp Sayce, lor, czt.).
4 It is otherwise idedtified with the one whose remains running
W. and E. were discovered during the digging of the founda-
tions for the English church.
5 So Stade G V f 1594.
6 Jos. (BJ’v. 42) places the Royal Caverns (Cotton Grotto)
near the Fuller’s Monument. See Athenreurn, 6th Feh. 1875.
7 The name thufun, which is almost the same word as ,::i is
stated by Fresnel (/XAS,1838, p. 514) to have been found by
him in use among the southern Arabs for thej‘er6ou, an animal
somewhat resembling the kyrax.
883
The origin of the Hebrew word is quite uncertain : it has
3een derived by Rodiger and others from a root meaning ‘to
lide,’ akin to 1”. The rendering ‘coney’(the probable mean-
,ng of the Targumic ~ 1 3 ~is) )due to Jewish tradition ; but the
habits of the rabbit do not suit the references in Ps. 10418 Pr.
j 0 26. Still less is to be said for a’srendering ~ O ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ A A L O S -
t.e., hedgehog2
The shiphin of O T is known to naturalists under the
name of Procavia (Hyrax) syriaca (Schrb.). It is a
member of the Hyracoidea, one of the most remarkable
orders of the Mammalia.
The Syrian hyrax is ahout the size of a small rabbit and has
a superficial resemblance to that rodent. I t is of a duil orange-
hrown or fawn colour, and has prominent incisor teeth, one pair
in the upper jaw and two in the lower ; the former as in the
rodents, grow throughout life, but instead of being chik-shaped
at their tip are pointed, and the teeth are triangular in section.
As in the rodents, there is a wide gap between the incisor and
the molar teeth. The zoological position of the order is obscure.
Cuvier pointed out certain anatomical features which they share
with the rhinoceros; but this relationship has not been universally
accepted, and at present it is better to regard them as an isolated
order. Palaeontology has so far thrown no light on the subject.
About fourteen species of hyrax are known, all of them from
Africa, Arabia, and Syria. The P. (Nyp-ur)syriucu, like most
of its congeners, lives in holes in rocky ground ; usually many
animals are found together, and they are very shy and easily
frightened. When alarmed they utter a shrill cry and hastily
retreat to their holes. Accordin- to Nasnonow,2 they are easily
tamed. They eat green leaves,afruit, hay, etc. They are said
to make a nest of grass and fur, and to bring forth from two or
three to six-three seems the usual nunlber--young at a time.
The Arabs esteem them as fopd, though Canon Tristram found
them ‘ rather dry and insipid. N. Y.- A. E. S.
CONFECTION, CONFECTIONARIES (Ex. 3025 35,
AV ; I S. 8 13, EV), old words meaning a composition
(confectio),or mixture of drugs or dainties, and those
who prepare such mixtures-Le., ‘ apothecaries ’-
respectively. RV correctly translates : ‘ a perfume
( n s i ) after the art of the perfumer (?ai).’ In I S. IC.
female perfumers are meant (nine?, pupe\loi, Zmquen-
t a ~ i e ) . It is the masc. pl. of the same word (n-np)
that. is rendered ‘ apothecaries ’ in EV (RV”‘g. ‘ per-
fumers ’) in Neh. 38 ( i w u m p [EN],pwKeeip [A], p ~ p e $ o i
[L], pigmentarii).
CONFESS,’CONFESSION. The verb m- in Hiph.
and Hithp. means either to acknowledge aloud in ritual
1. The term. worship God’s great and glorious attri-
butes ( = t o praise him) or to make a
solemn confession of sin.
The former meaning is far the commoner in Hiph., the latter
in Hithp. (a)For Xy;1 .‘to confess,’ see Ps. 82 5 Prov. 28 13 t ;
(6) for ”?!n:! ‘to praise,’ 2 Ch. 80 2zt (RV making confession ’).
For the more usual senses, see (a)Ps. 7 17 [18] 42 6 I Ch. 16 8 34
and elsewhere, (6) Lev. 5 5 1621 2640 Nu. 5 7 Ezra 10 I Neh.
1 6 9 2f: Dan. 9 4 20. Note also that the noun nyn, generally
‘thanksgiving,’ has in Josh. 7 rg Ezra 10 11 the sense of ‘ confes-
sion (of sin). B renders the verb usually by i&,pahoydv,
~&~poMyqurs once
, by b p ~ h o y ~; bit never renders the noun by
bpohoyia.
No doubt there is primitive Semitic symbolism in the
choice of ”11 to express the religious act of confession ;
but here, as elsewhere, we painfully feel the uncertainty
of the subject (cp Lag. Or. 2 22). The root-meaning
of the verb is ‘ to throw,’ or perhaps (cp Ar. w a d i and
m?, Is. 118) ‘ to extend.’ Some peculiar gesture used
in confession seems to be indicated (cp BDB, s.v. 77.).
I n I K. 838 ‘ spreading forth the hands’ is specified ;
but this was simply the ordinary gesture in prayer.
Individual confession of sin must be assumed to have
been common, though references to it are scanty.
2. Individual Josh. 719 is a passage by itself: Achan
IS bound to confess, to ‘give glory’
confession. thereby to the all-seeing G o d ; but he
is not forgiven. Prov. 28 13 (but not Ps. 825, where
~
pious Israel speaks) extols the benefit of it. I K. 8 3 8
virtually refers to it. When God touches the heart or
1 That this and notj>r6ou (as supposed by R6diger) is the
meaning of the Greek word is made certain by the testimony of
Suidas and Hesychius : see also Ducange, S.Z.
2 ZooZ. Anz. no. 490, 1895.
884
 CONFISCATION OF GOODS
conscience of the sinner (j>$ p?,6 &@pl K U ~ & S
a h o 6 , but EV ‘ t h e plague of his own heart’), the
sinner spreads forth his hands (see I ) towards ‘this
house ’ and obtains forgiveness. It has been suggested
that the liturgical formula i q m 5 ‘ to bring to remem-
brance ‘ (?) in the headings of Pss. 38 and 70f. (viewed
a s a Single psalm) means that these psalms were to be
used by a man confessing his sin at the offering of a
special sacrifice ; but the view is not very probable.
After the destruction of the temple, the confession of
sin by the high priest for the whole people having
ceased, the duty had to be discharged by each Israelite
for himself in the synagogue. Various formulae came
into use, for which see the interesting conspectus in
the article ‘ Sundenbekenntniss ’ in Hamburger’s REY,
Abth. 2.
( u ) Of liturgical confession of sin there are three great
examples : Neh. 9 Is. 637-6411rm1 Dan. 9 (psalms like
3, 51 may -also Le compared). Early
confessions. formulae used by the high priest on the
great fast have been preserved (see
kroNEMEwr, DIAYOF, § 7). See also the short genkral
formula quoted by Weber (&d. TheoL 321). from Talm.
Jer. Yoma, end. Such compositions belong to the
class called VI!, widdzii.
( p )There were liturgical confessions of another kind
-Thanksgivirg confessions. A sacrifice of niin (con-
fession = thanksgiving) is one which is accompanied by
a loud (because earnest) acknowledgment of God’s
gracious guidance (Ps. 10722 ; cp Jer. 3311, post-
exilic). The so-called Hidzi-psalms (105-107)also may
be mentioned here. On the phrase ‘ 3 5 niih!, descriptive
of a special service of the Levites, cp C HOIRS , 2.
T h e point of contact between confession of sin and
eucharistic confession is given in I I<. 833. When
Israel is defeated because of its sins, ‘ if they turn again
to thee, and confess thy name, and pray .. ., then
hear thou in heaven, and forgive ’ ; and it is in harmony
with this that two out of the three liturgical prayers
mentioned above begin with a glowing acknowledgment
of YahwB‘s goodness. ( T h e prayer in Dan. 9 merely
recognises the dnty of thanksgiving in a few words
relative to God’s fidelity to his covenant. )
I n the S e w Testament we find both senses of
P[opohoyeiv (to thank, and to confess) ; e.g., Mt. 1125
*. NT. see
In Rom.<l411the verb represents yxun :
36. Is. 4523. Opohoy& and 6pohoyla usually
signify ‘ profess,’ ’ profession ’ ; so, e.g., I Tim. 6 12, AV
Heb. 3 I , AV, etc.
Confession and repentance are necessarily connected-
the Baptist’s hearers are baptised, confessing (tfopoXo-
yo6pevor) their sins (Mk. 1 5 Mt. 36)-and therefore so
also are confession and forgiveness. See I Jn. 1 9 and
especially Ja. 5 16, where the ‘healing ’ spoken of has
reference to the sins confessed (moral and physical
J
troubles connected ; cp Is. 535 I Pet. 224). The &Xh$,o~
( ‘ one another ’) are Christian disciples.
The ‘ confession ’ of I Tim. 6 12 may be that made at
Timothy’s ordination ; but that of Heb. 3 I seems to be
the confession of the divine sonship of Jesus, snch as
was made at baptism (see BAPTISM, 0 3). T. K. C.
CONFISCATION OF GOODS ( j9Dl)3 Chg), Ezra 7 26
(ZHMIA TOY Bioy P A I S ZHMIWCAI . T A YTTAPXONTA
EL])= I Esd. 824 ( A p r y p i W I-PIKH~ ZHMIA P A ] ) .
Cp LAW AN D J USTICE , 12. r E s d . 632 has T&
i r ~ d p ~ o va ~h ouD &ai [€is] ~ U U L ~ ‘Lall K ~his goods to
be seized for the king,’ for Ezra 611, ‘let his house be
made a dunghill ’ (6otherwise).
For the ‘forfeiture’ threatened in Ezra 10s ( Y > D S j g P ? R ,
duaOcparcuO4ucrac ?r&a $ &rap& aCro0 ; I Esd. 94, dvrcpw.
Grjuomar r i i n j [-Grjuerar
~ ~ r i 8rrp&~ov7a,L] &&v * seized t c
the use of the temple ’) see BAN, $ 3.
1 Cp I S. 1026. For yij in v. 37 @ has uuvivqlpa.
2 E. Jacob Z A T W 176 g [‘gjr].
3 Read TidQapriar (W ), not r& napambpara (TR).
CONSECRATE
CONGREGATION. For il7y ‘id&, and (less cor-
Fctly) 5:z fi.i?zcit,and 1Yb m%d, see ASSEMBLY.
‘Thy congregation ’ Ps. B81o(i1) ItVmg. ‘thy troop’ (cp
IS . 23 I T 13, EV ; bdt see LEHI), &presents a corrupt Heb.
Nord. -p,n should prohably be i?ns. Canaan was a land of
:orn; cp 1s. 30 17. Fully corrected, the line becomes, ‘with thy
iread they were satisfied therein ’ (Che. Ps.(zt).
rrvvaywy< (Acts13 43) is in RV SVNACOGUE (p.~.).
For Acts738 RVew as in Tyndale, etc. (&KA?pla), see
:HURCH (so in EV).
CONGREGATION, MOUNT OF (l!& 73;EP tlper
>I)+$ [BKAQT]; i n monte teststamenti; 1.A ]ioJ),
RV’s modification of the unfortunate ‘mount of the
:ongregation ’ of AV, which suggests an impossible
dentification with Zion (Is. 1413.1.). The phrase occurs
n the boast of the king of Babylon, and describes a
mountain whose summit was above the ‘ stars of God ’
the brightest constellations), and its base in ‘ the recesses
2f the north.’ The best rendering is ‘Mountain of
the divine) assembly.’
No one would have thonght of Mount Zion, but for the
iccidental parallelism of ?pi0 5Zk (AV ‘tabernacle of the
:ongregation,’ RV ‘tent of meeting’), and the supposed refer-
:nce t o a passage in Ps.45 z [31 rendered in EV ‘ Mount Zion
:on] the sides of the north, the city of the great king.
ipin is a perfectly vague expression, and Ps. 48 z [3] is
under too great a suspicion of corruptness to serve as a
commentary.‘ It is, in fact, no mountain known in
terrestrial geography that is meant, but the ‘holy
mountain of Elohim ‘ (Ezek. 28 13f. ), where there were
the flashing’ stones (see C HERUB , 2, n.), and the
cherub, and (so the prophet thought) the king of Tyre
[see C HERUB , 5 2). It is not stated that this holy
mountain was in the north ; but we may presume from
Ezek. 1 4 that it was regarded as being there. This is
Eonfirmed by Job 3722 (emended text).
Out of the north cometh (supernatural) brightness ;2
On Eloah there is awe-inspiring splendour.
That the Babylonians believed in a similar northern
mountain can hardly be doubtfnl, in spite of Jensen’s
learned argument (KosmoL 203-209) against comparing
the i$n y? with the 2-barsag-kurkura (‘ Mountain-
house of the lands ’) of the Prism Inscription of Tiglath-
pileser I. (Del. Par. 118). I t appears that the later
Or writers supposed the north to be above, and conse-
quently the south below the earth (see Job267. and cp
E ARTH, FOUR Q UARTERS O F ). T h e expressions ‘ I
will scale the heavens,‘ and ‘ i n the recesses of the
north,’ are therefore strictly a c c ~ r a t e . ~
CONIAH (Sil;??), Jer. 2224. See J EHOIACHIN .
CONONIAH ($?I:?!?),
2 Ch. 31 12 f: AV, RV CON-
ANIAH.
CONSECRATE. For r@g $iddZT, ‘ to separate ’ (Ex.
283), see CLEAN, 0 13 For 1; NhP miZl2‘ ycid, ‘to fill the
hand’ (I Ch. 29 5), whence P$n ~%ilZu‘iitz,EV CONSECRATION
(Ex. 29m), see CLEAN, 0 3. For D’?nP ke&%rim, ‘to devote
(Mic. 413), see BAN, 8 I . For l’?? ‘to dedicate (oneself)’
(Nu. B 12)) whence 1JJn&w, AV C ONSECRATION, RV ‘separa-
tion’ (Nu. 67) see NAZIRITE.
T E T C A G W ~ & in Heb. ’7 28 is better rendered ‘perfected ’
py RV (cp AV 210 59). For dvsiaivruev (Heb. IOzo), RV
dedicated,’ see DEDICATE.
1 Some (Olsh., Che. Ps.(U,We.) omit fig: ’n?)’ as a gloss.
Che. Ps.(zl begins a new stanza with the words 1 ’ ” ~ fi’! ~ ~ -l?
iX+ ‘ Mount Zion-in its recesses is his jewel.’ 133: ‘jewel ’=
the holy city, as in Ezek. 7 22 (see Smend, ad Zoc.). Those who
accept neither solution of the problem must adopt the view
described in OPs, 317, which, however, Baethg. rightly pro-
nounces not quite satisfactory.
2 Read l$l with Che. (Expos. July 1897) and Duhm.
3 Hommel (Hastings’ DB 1216) adopts this view, and com-
pares 1YiD ’I?with a Bah. title of the sacred mountain,
k-sarra, ‘house of assembly.’ Karppe ( / o t i r n . As. g [‘97l,104)
thinks that the sacred mountain was originally the earth itself.
886
 CONSTELLATIONS
CONSTELLATIONS (n+pp), IS. 1310 EV. See
S TARS , § 3 (6).
CONSUL. A letter of ‘ Lucius, consul of the
Romans ’ (i;na.ros‘Pwpaiwu [AKV]) to King Ptolemy of
Egypt is giver? in I ’Macc. 15 16-21. See LUCIUS,I , and
M ACCABEES , FIRST, 9.
CONSULTER WITH FAMILIAR SPIRITS (igb
iiq Dt. i8II. See DIVINATION. 4 (ii.).
CONVOCATION, HOLY (Wl) KYRP), Ex. 1216.
See A SSEMBLY , 3.
CONVOY (YI?;l), z S. 19 18 [q], RVmg., E V F ERRY
B OAT (g. v. ).
COOKING AND COOKING UTENSILS. The
task of preparing the daily food naturally fell to the
1. Kitchens. women of the household, even women of
the highest rank attending, on occasion,
to this part of the household duties ( z S. 138f. ; cp
below). An apartment or apartments specially devoted
to the preparation of food-in other words, a kitchen-
can have been found only in the houses of the wealthy.
W e can realise without difficulty the kitchen of the
Hebrew kings and nobles from the life-like picture of
that of Rameses 111. as figured on his tomb at Thebes
(reproduced in Wilk. Am. Esypt. 23234). I n such
establishments there were cooks, male (o3np : I S. 9 q f : )
and female (”in?!: I S. 813). In connection with the
great sanctuaries, too, such as Shiloh ( I S. 14.9) and
Bethel, there must have been something of the nature
of a public kitchen, where the worshippers had facilities
for preparing the sacrificial meals. In his sketch of the
restored temple a t Jerusalem, Ezekiel makes provision
for such kitchens (both for the priests [46 19 f.] and for
the people [ z I - ~ ) ,which are here called ‘ boiling-places’
(ni$i,n, ,uayeipeiu [BAQ] : v. 23) and ‘ boiling houses ’
(RV v. 24 o&In-n*z, OZKOL TDY payeipwv). See
C LEAN , § 2.
I n an ordinary Hebrew household, whose food,
except on great occasions, was exclusively vegetarian,
2, culinary the culinary arrangements ‘were of the
simplest kind. Two large jars (12,kndh,
arrangements.
the Sr8pia of Jn. 428 2 6 8 ) of sun-dried
clay had a place in the meanest house, one for fetching
the daily supply of water from the spring-carried then
as now upon the head or on the shoulder by the women
of the household (Gen. 2 4 q f i ; cp I I<. 1833 [34] : EV
‘ barrel’)-the other for holding the store of wheat or
barley for the daily bread ( I I<. 17 IZ 14 16 : EV ‘barrel’).
In both the passages last cited the American revisers
rightly prefer the rendering ‘jars.’ T o these we must
add some instrument for crushing or grinding the grains
of the various cereals used as food, in particular wheat
and barley (see F OOD , I , B READ , § I). The most
primitive method was simply to crush the grains between
two stones or rather to rub them upon a flat stone by
means of another. Such primitive corn-grinders or
‘ grain-rubbers ’ (as they were called in Scotland) were
found by Mr. Bliss at all stages of his excavations in
Tell el-Hesy-the probable site of Lachish--‘ long slabs
flat on one side and convex on the other, with rounded
ends’ (Bliss, A Xound of iVfany Cities, 83, illustr. p.
85). They are found also both in ancient and in
modern Egypt (see illustr. in Erman’s Egypt, 190, for
‘the former; for the latter, Benz. HA 85, Nowaclc,
H A 1110). The pestle and mortar (see M ORTAR ) re-
present a later stage in the art of preparing food.
The still more effective hand-mill or quern (n;?~)with its
upper and nether millstones-hence the dual form-is
the last to appear (Ernian, op. cit. 189 ; see also MILL).^
1 The practice varies in different parts of Syria. In some
parts the jar when empty is carried on the head ; when filled,
on the shoulder (ZDMG 11516).
2 Cp Doughty, AT. Des. 2179: ‘After the water-skins a
pair of mil1,stones is the most necessary husbandry in an Arabian
household.
887
COOKING
MILK (4.v.) was kept in skins (Judg.419), but more
usually in bowls, wine in skin bottles (see BOTTLE, I ) ,
oil and honey in earthenware jars (see Cause, 2).
Olives, grapes, figs, and the other fruits of the soil were
no doubt kept partly in similar jars, partly in baskets,
of which several varieties are named in O T and N T (see
B ASKET ). Such were the SRZ ($e, Gen. 40 17 etc. ;
~auov^u[ADEL]), a basket of wicker-work; the ;/ne’
(K!!, Dt. 262; K U ~ T U X X O S[BAFL]; canist?-/mz,cp Verg.
A%. 8 180) for carrying wheat from the threshing-floor,
to judge from the passage Dt. 28 5 17 ( ‘ blessed shall be
thy basket and thy kneading-trough ’ RV ; d ai drroE+-
at m u ) ; and the dzid (m),a basket in which figs were
gathered (Jer. 242 Ps. 816171 RV). T h e preparation of
bread, always the staple article of diet, required the
kneading-trough (n-,vr+) of wood, earthenware, or bronze
according to circumstances, and the oven (iun)-men-
tioned together Ex. 8 3 (7 z8)-for which see B READ , z c.
Coming now to cooking, in the ordinary sense-that
is, the preparation of food by the agency of fire,-
~.
3. Preparation we find t h a t the various methods of
~
cooking to which reference is made
of food. may be grouped under two heads.
T h e food was cooked either (i)by bringing it into
immediate contact with the source of heat, whether as
in the case of the ash-calces (subcinericizlrpnnis, I IC.
196, described under B READ , 5 z a ) or in the rough
and ready method of roasting on the live embers (see
below) or in the more civilised method of roasting by
means of spit or gridiron ; or ( 2 ) by using a suitable
liquid as the medium for transmitting the heat required
-such as water, milk, oil, or fat (in frying). It would
seem that the Hebrews originally included these various
processes under the general term $d3.
The original signification of this verbal root was evidently ‘to
be or to become ripe,’ ‘ to ripen ’ applied to grain (Joel 3[4113)
y d fruit (Gen.4010) from which the transition to the idea of
making (food) eatablk ’-i.e., cooking-was easy (cp post-biblical
$,e%, something cooked, a ‘dish ). Hence we find de+ $t$?
‘cooked with fire’ ( 2 Ch.3513) and 0;@2 $$!n ‘cooked with
(or in) water’ (Ex.129) when it is important that ‘roasted’
and ‘boiled’ shall be )precisely distinguished. In ordinary
language, however, $@ was used only in the sense of ‘boil,’
while for the various forms of ‘roasting’ indicated under (I)
above ( I S.215 Is.441619) use was made of the word n$s.
That which was roasted, a roast, was (Is.4416; cp *!?
roasted or parched corn; see FOOD, 8 I). In the Talmud a
third verb is frequently found alongside of and $!;?-vi.,
p>$, which is applied not only to the cooking of flesh but also to
the boiling down of fiuit to make preserves (Ma‘as. 4r, h-el.
SS). These three verbs are generally taken to represent the
Latin assure, cogaare, and eZizuve respectively, in which case
p h would signify ‘to boil thoroughly’ (cp on:, in Ezek. 2410,
RV ‘to boil well ’ and nni i6. v. 5 ) : it is probably equiva-
lent to our ‘stew ’)sincein th: absence of knives and forks (see
MEALS) the Orie‘ntal bas to stew his meat till it can be readily
pulled in pieces by the hand.
When the meat was boiled in a larger quantity of
water than was necessary for stewing, the rich liquor
which resulted was known as p;?, m&@ (Judg. 619J
Is. 654 Isr. [Kt. pip] EV ‘ b r o t h ’ ) , also perhaps as ~~~1~
(Ezek. 2410, RV ’make thick the broth’). The meat
and the broth might be served together or separately
(the latter by Gideon, Judg. Zoc. cit.). When the meat,
on the other hand, is set on with a smaller quantity of
water, to which onions or other pungent vegetables or
spices have been added, the result is the favourite
Arab stew yahni (fl.), perhaps the p ’ $ t (Ned.7)
and nip?? (A6. Zar. ‘25) of the Mishna. The .‘ savoury
. - : - Gen. 27 4 : cp Prov. 23 3) which Rebelcah
meat ’ (omyan,
prepared from ‘ two kids of the goats ’ was doubtless a
spicy stew of this kind.
A reference to another modern dish, Ai66eh, which has been
1 The Mishnic Heb. >!. ’ is a large metal basket; cp BDB,
and, for this and other vessels, J. Krengel, Das Huuspyril in
derlllishnuh, I Theil, 1899 (see Index).
888
 COOKJNG AND COOKIUG UTENSILS
I
called the national dish of Syria has been found by various
scholars in Prov. 27 22 1ZV : ‘ Thodgh thou shouldest bray a fool
in a mortar with a pestle among bruised corn et will not his
foolishness depart from him.’ This exactly de<zibes the opera-
tion of making ki6belz: the mutton is first pounded to shreds in
a wooden or stone mortar; it is then mixed with burglEu2 (see
FOOD,g I). and the whole boiled and served.1 [But on the-text
see EA?. Y:viii. r97], 432 ; where n i p l , i ‘bruised corn‘ (?) ;s
emended to l ’ p q , ‘his fellows.’]
When an animal of the herd ( i p ) or of the flock
(ids, see, further, F OOD , § IT, and S ACRIFICE ) was
to be prepared for food it was first slaughtered accord-
ing to the prescribed method and the carcase thoroughly
drained of its blood. For skinning, flint knives (cp n>&
Judg. 1929) were used in early times (cp Josh. 5 2 3 , RV
‘ knives of flint ’)-such as those recovered from Tell-el-
Hesy (Bliss, op. cit. 194, illustr. 106). Sacrificial
knives were later known as D & C ~ (Ezra 1 9 ; cp post-
biblical ng i !’:) ; a knife for ordinary domestic purposes
was p i g (Prov. 23z)-h later Hebrew always p g . T h e
animal was then cut up, the technical term for which was
nn! (Lev. 1 6 12, and often)-a single piece nn] 2-the
priests received the portions that were their due and the
remainder was consigned to the pot. The latter, if of
copper, had in later times to be scrupulously scoured
(pin) and rinsed ( i w , Zebnh. 1 1 4 3 ; cp Mk.74)
when the cooking was over.
The prmitive hearth was formed of a couple of
stones by which the pot was supported, room being left
beneath for the fuel-wood or dung (see
4’ Firing’ COALS, 2). Large pots might be placed
on the top of the tnnnzir or baking oven, as at the
present day ; such an arrangement was found to have
been in use in the ancient Lachish (see Bliss, 09.cit.
97). The smaller pots were boiled on a chafing dish
or pan containing charcoal ( d ii.?, ~ Zech. 126 AV
‘hearth of fire,’ RV ‘ p a n of fire’), as in Rameses’
kitchen. I n Lev. 113s there is mention, alongside of
the tannzir or oven, of the kiruim (n-p3, KvOp6?ro&s
[BF]. Xurpbiro&s [AL] ; EV ‘ range[s] for pots,’ KVmg,
‘ stew-pan ’). According to the Talmud, it was a port-
able cooking-stove, capable of holding two pots (hence
the dual) as distinguished from the kzippZh (a?)>, better
m..~ )a,stove which had room for only one pot (Jastrow,
I
Dict., s.v.). Like the tannzir, it was of baked clay,
and, therefore, easily broken (cp Di. in Zoc. and Now.
HA 2280, n.). The kirdh (in the sing.) and the huppdh
are frequently mentioned together in the Mishna (see
esp. Kelim). For carrying the necessary charcoal a
ladle or firepan ( m ~ nwas ) used (Ex. 273 383 ; in Num.
1 6 6 3 ‘censer’ ; KeL 237) ; for stirring and adjusti’ng
it, a pair of tongs (D;& Is. 66) ; ~’y; shovels ( p d u or
rutrum), for removing the ashes, are mentioned, but
only in connection with the great altar (see A LTAR , § 9).
T h e bellows ( ~ ?;n @uuvr.i)p[BKAQ]) of Jer. 629 was
probably used only by the metal smelters-Tor a descrip-
tion and illustration, see Wilkinson, 09. cit. 2 312.
T h e ordinary housewife was content to fan the charcoal
with a fan (m;n, KeL 167) of feathers, as pictured in
the representation of Rameses’ kitchen referred to above.
T h e names of various utensils in which food was
actually cooked are differently rendered in EV without
5. Cooking any attempt at consistency : pan, kettle,
pot (in this order is the list given
utensils. caldron,in I S. 2 14). T h e data at our command
do not permit of these being accurately distinguished
one from another. In the houses of the poor they were
1 For other modern dishes see Lane (Mod. Egyylst. 5 ) and esp.
the elaborate menu of a native dinner in Klunzinger (Upper
E u j t , 5gJ); see also, for Syria, Landberg (Proucrbes e t
Bictons, passim).
2 The good piece’ (AV) or ‘portion’ (RV) of flesh which
David distributed among the people at the inbringing of the
ark (2 S. G 19 I Ch. 163) is only one of several traditional render-
ings of the doubtful Heh. word lzvy, the real signification of
which has been lost. See Dr. TBS in Zoc. [Since the word
889
doubtless of glazed or even unglazed earthenware ( 3 5 ~
h n , Lev. 6z6[21] ; see P OTTERY ) ; in those of the
wealthier classes, of bronze (n$n! ’\:, Zoc. cit., Ezek.
2411). T h e difference of rank (so to say) between the
two materials gives point to Ben Sira’s illustration,
a What fellowship shall the earthen pot have with the
[brazen] kettle?’ (&pa irpbs X@p9~u: Ecclus. 1323).
I n connection with the temple we read not only of pots
and caldrons made of bronze (I K. 7 45 z K. 25 14 Jer.
5218) but also of such vessels of silver and gold
(Jer. 52 19).
i. For boiling meat various vessels were employed
(cp I S. 214). (a) The most frequently mentioned is
the i*~, sir, pot or caldron. I t was used for cooking
the ordinary family meal (z K. 4381: Mic. 3 3 Ex. 1 6 3
[flesh pots of Egypt]), and for boiling the sacrificial flesh
(Zech. 1420). I t served also for a ‘washpot‘ (Ps. 608
[IO]). It must have been one of the largest of the cook-
ing vessels, to judge from the incident recorded in z K.
4 3 8 3 ( ‘ the great pot ’ for the whole company of the
prophets). ’ (6) The k ~ y 8 (r ~ 3must ) have been a wide,
shallow pot of considerable size, since the same name
is given to the ‘ laver of brass ’ (Ex. 30 18) at which the
priests were to wash their hands and feet. I t served as
a chafing-dish (Zech. 126). Wherein the kiyy8r differed
from (c) thepdrzir (am) in which the manna was boiled
(Nu. 118 RV), and (d)the dzid (137, Job 4120[1z]), and
(e) the &zlZd+ath (nnis, Mic. 33), we do not know.
In Job41~o[iz]caldron (AV) is’a mistranslation of jinJN (see
RUSH,2). In z S, 139 M T has nlpg, not found elsewhere (EV
pan); but the true reading is probably ‘[and she called the]
servant’ (m&: so Klo. followed by Ki. and Bu.).
These various pots, pans, etc., were probably used without a
lid (in late Heb. W?),although the obscure 1.p: of Nu. 19 15
is taken by some to have this signification.
ii. A fork ( h n , h p ) of two or three ( I S.213)
prongs was used to lift the meat from the pot, and also
to stir the contents of the latter (see illustration, Wilkin-
son, op. cit. 32).
iii. The spoons (nim) mentioned among the furniture
of the table of shewbread (Ex. 2529) and elsewhere were
more probably shallow bowls. W e find, however, in
the Mishna, real spoons (iiln) made of bone (Shu66.
8 6, Kel. 17 2) and of glass (KeZ. 30 2). There
is also mention of a wooden cooking ladle (yp in?
‘EZgZh,1 7 ) , which was probably used for removing the
scum (a$$, Ezek. 246 11, so AV ; but this word is more
probably ‘ rust ’ as RV) from the contents of thepdyzir
or pot (otherwise explained by Levy, s.n. in?).
While boiling, to judge from the comparative
frequency of the OT references, was the favourite
6. Roasting. mode of cooking flesh-meat, there need
be no hesitation in saying that roasting
also was practised from the earliest times. I n its most
primitive form, roasting, as we have seen, consists in
laying the meat directly on the ashes or other source of
heat, either kindled on the ground or in a pit specially
dug (Burckhardt, Notes, etc. 1240, Rob. E R 1‘411, 1118
304). The fish of which the disciples partook by the,
lake of Galilee was cooked by being laid on the charcoal
(d$dp~ov d r r ~ ~ d p e v oJn.
v , 21 9).
T h e spit, the d p ~ X 6 sof the Homeric poems, is not
mentioned, as it happens, in the O T ; but of its use
there need be no doubt. I n Egypt, Erman tells us,
‘ the favourite national dish, th,e goose, was generally
roasted over live embers ; the spit is very primitive, a
stick stuck through the beak and neck of the bird.
They roasted fish in the same way, sticking the spit
through the tail’ (Egypt, 189, illustr. i6., and Wilk.
235). T h e wooden spit was favoured by the Romans
(cp Verg. Geoqy. 2396, ‘Pinguiaque in verubus torre-
appears to be corrupt, the emendation 1EjW ns, ‘a piece of
flesh,’ has been suggested by Cheyne. This easy alteration
suits the context.]
890
 COOKING
bimus exta colurnis).’ Later Hebrew legislation-in
this, no doubt, perpetuating an ancient practice-required
that the Passover lamb should be roasted on a spit of
pomegranate ( P n - b t iiay [Levy, iisg] Pes. 71). The
‘ ordinary spit, being of iron,-so much we may infer
from the demand that a spit purchased from an idolater
must be cleansed in the fire ( A b . Zara. 512)--u-as not
allowed for the above-mentioned purpose ; neither was
the gridiron ( ~ D N Pes. , 72). The spit, we may sup-
pose, rested on andirons* (pduers, vat-@),on which it
could be turned by the hand.
The passage of the treatise Peslihim above referred
to speaks further of roasting, or more exactly of
broiling, on a gridiron placed apparently over the
mouth of a tannur or baking oven. The gridiron was
perhaps used to prepare the piece of broiled fish (ixBiros
~ T T O F pkpos) of Lk. 2442. Not only flesh and fish but
also eggs, onions, etc., were roasted by the Jews
(Shabb. 1I O ).
The favourite mode of roasting meat for ordinary household
purposes at the present day in Syria is by means of skewers.
The meat is cut into small pieces, which are stuck upon the
skewers and roasted over a brazier. Meat thus prepared is
termed kebrib.
With regard to the food-products of the vegetable
kingdom (see FOOD),many vegetables were of course
., Vegetable eaten raw (dpL6s, in Hebrew ’n, literally
food. ’living,’ a word applied not only to raw
animal flesh [ I S. 215 Lev. 131081, but
also to fish [Nedav. 641, to vegetables [ib.], and even
to unmixed wine). They were also cooked by being
boiled, alone or mixed with various ingredients-such
as oil and spices. The Hebrew housewives, we may
be sure, were not behind their modern kinsfolk of the
desert, of whom Doughty testifies that ‘ the Arab house-
wives make savoury messes of any grain, seething it
and putting thereto only a little salt and sumn’ ( A r .
Des.2130). Thus, of the cereals, the obscure ‘n‘risrih
(no>iy, Nu. 1 6 z o f . ) was probably a porridge of barley
groats. (see, further, FOOD, § i), whilst Jacob sod for
himself a dish ( ~ 2 E, V ‘pottage’) of lentils (Gen.
2529 34) ; the same name is given to the vegetarian dish
prepared for the sons of the prophets ( z K. 4 3 8 8 ;
cp Hagg.212). I n N T times, at least, it was known
that the pulses or pod-plants were improved by being
soaked ( M H a$) before being boiled. Various kinds,
such as beans and lentils, might be boiled together
(OvZah, 1 7 ) : they might also, like our French beans,
be boiled in the pods (nip??). I n the O T we find men-
tion of the ma&Zbath (nq!, T ? ~ ~ U U O V .AV ‘ p a n , ’ RV
‘baking-pan,’ mg. ‘flat piate,’ Lev. 25 621 [I+]. etc.)
and the nznr/llheth (npjnm,,EV ‘frying pan,’ Lev. 27
79). The mahZbath certainly (see Ezek. 43). and the
marh!sheth probably, was of iron ; and, although both
are used with reference only to the sacrificial cakes (see
BAKEMEATS, B READ ), we may legitimately infer from
the fact that the martyrs of 2 Macc. 7 were roasted alive
on the mjyavov (vv.3 5 ; cp late Heb. word jm) that
both may have been used also in the - preparation
. of
meat.
To judge from the prepositions employed(sy, ‘on’ and 3, ‘in’),
the ma/zdbath was deeper than the marhisheth. Th&inference is
confirmed by the tradition which we find in the Mishna, that the
difference between the m&kshsheth and the ma/zribath consisted
in the former having a lid (WI?) while the latter had none ; to
which another authority adds that the former is deep and its
contents fluid, the latter flat and its contents firm (Mena/z. 5s).
The Itmhribath, in short, was a stewpan, the mar/zPsheU Similar
to a Scotch girdle,’ a flat iron plate on which oatcakes are baked.
A striking illustration of Ezek. 4 3 is furnished by Doughty
( A T . Des. 1593), who describes an iron-plated door in the
castle of HZyil : ‘the plates (in the indigence of their arts) are
the shield-like iron pans (tannur) upon which the town house-
wives hake their girdle-bread.’
Other utensils named or implied are ( a ) the sieve,
1 Some would give this or a similar sense to &ox. See
Jastrow, Did. S.V.
coos
nliphAh (711, Is. 3028 ; Shabb. 82, Aboth, 515). for
sifting the flour, and ( b ) the strainer, mZIanimdrereth,
nl2dn (Shabb. 201, Ab. 615 [especially for wine] ; cp Is.
256, ’Mt. 23 24). An ordinary bowl, however, might be
perforated so as to serve as a strainer, as we see from
the pottery of Tell-el-Hesy (Bliss, op. cit. 85). T o
these may be added ( c ) one of the commonest of the
post-biblical terms for a pot, ”mp; hence a ~ ntgp p
came to signify ‘ cooked food ’ (Nednr. 6 I ). For the
vessels used for serving food, see M EALS , 3 8.
The importance of oil in the Hebrew kitchen will be
noticed under OIL (q.71.). In early times the custom,
8. condiments. so popnlar among the modern Arabs,
of boiling flesh in milk seems to have
prevailed among the Hebrews. The oldest legislation
-confirmed by the Deuteronomic-limited this practice
so far as to forbid (for reasons that are still obscure : cp
F OOD , 3 13,and see M AGIC , SACRIFICE) the seething of
a kid in its mother’s milk (Ex. 2519 3426 Dt. 1421).
In N T times this prohibition had been extended far
beyond its original intention.
Thus we read in the Mishna : ‘ It is forbidden to seethe ($d:)
any sort of flesh in milk, except the flesh of fish and locusts ; it
is also forbidden to set flesh upon the table along with cheese
(with the same exceptions, Khullin, SI). It was still debated
whether the prohibition applied to fowls and game or only to
cattle sheep and goats (ib. 4). In the course of time however
it hdame pdrt of the Jewish dietary law, that two d h n c t set;
of cooking utensils-one for meat alone, and another for dishes
into the preparation of which milk or butter enters-are required
in every orthodox Jewish kitchen (see on this law of x$n> y i ~ x
esp. Wiener, Die ?ad. Speisegesefze,41-120 [‘g51). Extreme
purists have gone the length of using three (ib. 115f.) and even
four such sets. A . n. s. R.
COOS, or rather, as in RV and Macc. 1523 EV,
I
Cos ( K W C ; now Stanchio-Le., EE KW ), the least
TTJV
and most southerly of the four principal islands off the
coast of Asia Minor. I t lies at the entrance to a deep
bay, on the two projecting promontories of which were
Cnidus and Halicarnassus. It owed its fertility to its
volcanic origin, and its commercial importance to its
position. I t lies on the high road of all maritime traffic
between the Dardanelles and Cyprus : vessels coasting
in either direction must pass within half a mile of the
capital (also called Cos), which was on the E. extremity
of the island, and had a good anchorage and a port
sheltered from all winds except those from the SE.
Lucan (Phni: 8243) thus sketches the usual route of
ships :-
Epkesoiayue relinpuens
Radit saxa Sanii; spirat de Zitore Coo
Aura &ens : Cnia’on iitdefu$, clm-ampue d i t t p u i i
Sole Rhodon.
In precise agreement with this is the account of Paul’s
voyage from Macedonia to Palestine (Acts 21 I ) . His
ship ran before the wind (EdOdpop$uav.res) from Miletus,
about 40 m. to the N., down to Cos (i.e . , either the
island or the capital: probably the latter is meant);
next day it reached Rhodes.
In spite of its geographical advantages Cos remained historic-
ally unimportant. Its inhabitants aGparently of deliberate
choice, eschewed foreign relationshibs, and devoted themselves
to the development of internal resources. No colonies were
sent out ; for long the capital was in the west of the island :
the strategic and commercial importance of its present site was
ignored until 366 B.C. When at last the Coans were compelled
to emerge from their seclusion, it was only to echo the voice of
Rhodes in all matters of foreign policy. The success of this
concentration of energy is indicated by the fact that Cos ranked
with Rhodes, Chios, Samos, and Leshos as one of th@pac&pwv
v l j w o ~(Diad. Sic. 581 8 2 ) and hy the existence of the sayin
‘He who cannot thrive in Cos will do no better in Egypt.’?
Allied with this material prosperity was the development of
liberal arts. Under the Ptolemies Cos became an important
literary centre. With it are connected the names of Theocritus
the poet, BCrassus the hisiorian, Apelles the painter, and, at an
earlier date (5th cent. B.c.) Hippocrates the physician. Cos
was one of the great centres)of the worship of Zsculapius, and
of the caste or medical school of Asclepiad=. Claudius in 53
A.D. gave the island the privilege of immunity, mainly for its
medical fame (Tac. Ann. 1261).
 COPPER
Among the commercial products of the island were unguents,
two kinds of wine, pottery (anzjhorre COE,Pliny, HAr 85 16r),
aud silk for Roman ladies (COE p u r j u r e , Hor. Od. iv. 13 13
vestes tenues, Tibull. ii. 3 55). Cos is still an active port. 3n the E. of the Lebanon range copper must have
Strabo (657) notes the fair aspect of the city to one entering theieen abundant in the ' l a n d of NubaSSi' (Am. Tub.),
roads.
Interesting is the connection of Cas with the Jews.
As Mithridates seized 800 talents deposited in the island
by the Jews of Asia (Jos. Ant. xiv. 7 z ) , there must then
have been a Jewish settlement there engaged in banking.
I n I Macc. 1523 C8s is mentioned in the list of places
to which the circular letter of the Roman senate in
favour of the Jews (circu 139-8 8. c. ) is said to have been
addressed. In 86 B . C . Gaius Fannius wrote to the
Coan authorities enclosing a senutus c o n s u h m to secure
safe convoy for Jewish pilgrims to Jerusalem. The
island was connected also with Herod the Great (Jos.
B/ i. 2111), and with his son Antipas (Boeclch, 2502).
Best authority, Znscriptioizs of Cos, by Paton and Hicks,
1891; an attempt at direct combination of epigraphy and
history. W. J. W.
COPPER (n@tI; ; X&AKOC ; cp B R A S S ). T h e com-
pound of copper and zinc that we call brass appears
1. In Egypt. to have been little known to the ancients ;
but we have abundant evidence that
copper was early know-n, and that it was hardened by
means of alloys into bronze. Seneferu, a conquering
pharaoh of the fourth dynasty, worked the Sinaitic
copper mines, and M. de Morgan has found some
articles of copper in the tomb of Menes (traditionally
regarded as the first king of Egypt), explored by him in
1897. M. AniBlineau appears to have proved that
copper was known at an even earlier date, and from
his researches and those of Mr. Quibell at KBm el-
Ahmar we may probably conclude that the Pharaonic
Egyptians were from the first not ignorant of the use
of gold and copper (@nt). Themines in the Sinaitic
peninsula continued to be the chief source from which
the Egyptians drew their copper (see Maspero, Dawn of
Civ. 355, and cp S I N A I ) ; but in the fifteenth century
they obtained it also from AlaSia-ie., C Y P R U S(see ~ Rehoboam's shields of 'brass' ( I K. 1427 z Ch. 1210)
Ani. T a b . , 2 5 and 27), where Cesnola has found
both copper and bronze Celts in Phcenician remains.
'The oldest Babylonian specimens of copper arc those
found by M. de Sarzec at Tello (before 2.500 B. c. ) ; at
2. In Babylonia, Tell es-Sifr, in the same neighbour-
hood, Mr. Loftus has found even a
large copper factory (1500 B.C.). In Babylonian of RalawBt) ;5 mining implenients of ' brass ' in Ecclus.
graves, and also in what Dr. J. P. Peters calls a
jeweller's shop (at Nippnr). objects made of copper
(belonging to rima 1300 R . c . ) have been found.
Homniel thinks, on philological grounds, that the
Semitic Babylonians as metallurgists were pupils of
the Sumerians, and dates their acquaintance with
copper and iron very early.2 The inscriptions make
frequent mention of copper (;Z$UYU) and bronze3 (era,
also @a, and zirudri ; cp Lat. raudus=as i~zfectectn~rz). of Bdhemoth (Job 40 18)and the browofdisobedient Israel
T h e ancient hymn (in Sumerian and Assyrian) to Gibil,
the fire-god, extols him for his services in the mixing of
copper and tin (cp Tubal-cain, and see CAINITES, tion. I t was the third empire in Nebuchadrezear's
§,IO). The Assyrians used bronze axes as late as the
mn:b century. They derived their copper and bronze
largely from the so-called Na'iri countries ; ultimately,
therefore, from Armenia ; the copper in the tribute paid
to Kanimgn-nirari 111. by Damascus is mentioned
elsewhere ( IRos).4
T h e Canaanites, naturally enough, were well ac-
quainted with copper. According to Ritter (Erdk. 17 1063
cited by Knobel), there are still traces of
3' In ancient copper-mines in the Lebanon ;5
1 Flinders Petrie also accepts Winckler's identification of
Ala& in Am. Tab. with Cyprus (where copper was worked).
See his argument, S y r i a ana'EEgypt, 44 ('98).
2 Die senzit. Volker. 1 AIO.
333, Sad Ba'al
893
COPPER
his is confirmed by what seems to be an assertion of
he fact in Dt.89 and Zech. 61 (see below, § 5).
which Halevy ingeniously identifies with ZOBAH; and in
ater times there were copper mines in Edom at Phainon,
x Phenon (cp P INON). The Phcenicians early employed
xonze for works of art,l and the great mound of Tell
:I-Hesy, believed to be Lachish, proves that the Amorites
who dwelt there had used their opportunities. ' In
.he remains of the Amorite city (perhaps 1500 B .c.)
:here are large rough weapons of war, made of copper
without admixture of t i n ; above this, dating perhaps
?om 1250 to 800, appear bronze tools, but the bronze
yadually becomes scarcer, its place being taken by
4. In Israel. i r o n ' 2 (see I RON). Whatever, therefore,
be the date of I S. 1 7 5 as a document,
we may feel quite certain that the Philistine warriors had
armour of bronze ; indeed, their ancestors in Asia Minor
doubtless had bronze weapons long before David's
Goliath, however, uses weapons of attack made
of iron (the hidGn [?] of bronze can hardly be a javelin ;
see GOLIATH).
The statement in Josh. 6 2 4 (copper or bronze vessels
Found in Jericho) will be in the main correct ; also that
in z S. 8 8, in as far as it relates to the abundance of
bronze in Syria. Whether the serpent of bronze called
NEHLJSHTAN [ p . ~ . ] was earlier than the temple of
Solomon may, perhaps, be doubted. At any rate, the
notice in Nu. 219 ( J E ) is as much of an anachronism as
that in Ex. 382-8 (P). The Israelites in the wilderness
had no workers in bronze. Nor could David find a
competent bronze-worker in all Israel ; the statements
respecting Hiram the artificer in I K. 7 13 5 arc no
doubt historical." In the later regal period it was, of
course, quite otherwise (cp Jer. 6 28$ Ezek. 22 18 2 0 ) .
From z K. 25 13f. Jer. 52 17 f: we learn that the
Babylonians broke the sacred vessels of bronze and
carried away the metal to Babylon; no doubt
went there too ; but the chief losses were probably
repaired. T h e cymbals in the second temple were
certainly of copper or bronze, as we may infer from
I Ch. 1519 Jos. Ant. vii. 123 (cp I Cor. 131). Gates of
' brass ' arc mentioned in Ps. 107 16 Is. 45 z (cp Herod.
1 1 7 9 , and see Mr. Pinches' account of the bronze gates
48 17 (Heb. Text).
That ' brass ' (bronze) should be used to symbolise
hardness and strength is natural. In time of drought,
5. OT usage. it seemed as if the heavens were bronze,
so that no rain could pass through them
(Dt. 2823), or as if the earth were bronze, so that it could
never be softened again (Lev. 26 19). A sufferer asks if
his ' flesh ' ( i . e . , body) is of brass (Job612), as the bones
(Is. 484) are, by other writers, said to be. To be com-
pared with brass is not, however, the highest distinc-
vision that was of ' brass' (Dan. 239 cp v.yz). On the
other band, ' brass ' in the obscure phrase ' mountains
of brass ' (Zech. 6 I ) has no symbolic meaning : ' brass '
(i.e . , copper) is merely mentioned to enable the reader to
identify the mountains (cp NnhaSSi, the ' copperland ' ;
see § 3 ) .
Difficultas the passage is, we need not despair of explaining
it. The 'mountains -of brass' are parallel to the 'mountains
sapun, great mountain of copper ; also Sargon, Ann. 23. where
Ba'il-gapuna, ' the great mountain,' is spoken of as containing
mines (copper?).
1 Perrot and Chipiez, A r t in Phmcicia and Cyprus.
April 21,~1898.p. 596.
. _
2 Dr. I. H. Gladstone. 'The Metals of Antiu:iitv,'Naiure.
3 Schliemann's discovery of weapons of copper and bronze on
the site of Troy is well known.
4 On the right reading of I K. 7 46. see ADAM, i.
5 The bronze ornaments of rhe palace gates from BalawBt
(parts i.-iv.) published by SOC.ofBib1. ArchreoZ.
894
 COR
(@ T ~ ) Vbpiwwu) in the river-land’ (?&??; cp a&’Is. 44 27)--i.e.,
those visible from Babylonia-in Zech. 18, and must have been
as well known as these to Zechariah’s hearers or readers. The):
were no douht the ‘hills out of which thou mayest dig copper
(Dt. 89)-i.e., Lebanon and Herman (see above, $ 3). which
formed the northern boundary of the Holy Land. It is the
land of the north’ (the seat of the empire of the Seleucidz?)
that chiefly occupied the thoughts of the speaker1 (68). See
Z ECHARIAH, BOOK OF. On Ips? nWn! EzraSz7, cp COLOURS,
8 7. T. I<. C.
COR (15,perh. Ass. RAru [v. Muss-Arnolt, s.D.], or
from J 713 ; see No. ZD’WG 40 734 [‘86]), a measure of
capacity=an homer ( I O ephahs or baths) ; of wheat
and barley ( I I<. 422 [52] ; EV ‘measure,’ mg. ‘ c o r ’ ;
2 Ch. 2 10[9] 27 5 ; RV”’S. ’ cors ’). As a liquid nieasure
Ezelc.4514. z K. 6254emended text) speaks of & cor of
carobs (see H USKS ).
In I K.5 I I [251 ‘measiires of oil’ is wrong; read is$ ng
‘baths of oil,’ after d and /I 2 Ch. 2 9. ~ 6 p 0 s[BAL] a loan-word,
which in d represents both li and l@l,occurs once in N T (Lk.
167 RVmg. ‘cors’: A V l w says ‘about 74 bushels and a pottle’).
See WEIGHTS AND M EASURES.
CORAL is EV’s rendering in Job 28 18 Ezek. 27 16 of
- which occurs also
JliDHl, a word of unknown oriqin,
in Prov. 247, where EV treats it as a
1. R ~ ~ a t derivative
unidentified. h of on, meaning ’ too high.’
Most commentators, however (Hitz.,
Siegfr.-Sta., etc. ), suppose that there is a reference to a
precious object called r d ’ m 2 - a s if the wise man meant,
’Wisdom is as much out of the fool’s reach as coral.’
Neither explanation is satisfactory.
The word occurs only twice,,and, since the Vss. shed
an uncertain light on the meaning, we must be content
to make the most of internal evidence.
Ezek. has h a p 0 [BQl, p a p p e [AI, sevicz~m;Job has pe~&popa
[BNAC Theod.], 6$qA6. iSym.1, exceZsasa; Prov. has uobia x a l
&oca bya$ ;u Tu’Aars [BNAI for iywx niD3n $ 1 ~ 5n:nm [Vg.,
exceLsaI.3
T h e context in Job (rAmJth, gAJiS, pinininz) shows
that some precious and ornamental substance is intended,
and Dillmann infers from the language that YZmjth
was regarded as less valuable than pinizininz (see below).
According to M T of Ezek. 2716, r&nZh, with ntpheh,
ar@min, rikmnh, J B s , and Andhk&i%, was brought into
the Tyrian market by merchants of Syria ; but probably
(see Cornill, ad Zoc.) we should read for A r m ( o w )
Ecloni (oiis); as Cornill remarks, Edom was an im-
portant stage in the transport of merchandise westward
from S. Arabia and India. This last indication of the
provenance of rinztth makes against the usual rabbinic
rendering, ‘ coral ’ ; for the red coral of commerce-the
hard kalcareous skeleton of the colonial Actinozoon,
CornZZinm noEiZe, Pal. (rzrbmm, Da Costa), which is
widely distributed in the Mediterranean and the iltlantic
as far as the Cape Verd Islands. and is a considerable
source of wealth in the Mediterranean basin-occurs in
its natural state much less frequently S. and E. of Suez.
2. In RV“’g. ‘ corals’ (Lam. 4 7 ) , ‘ r e d coral,’ and
‘pearls’ (Job2818 Prov. 315 811 2 0 1 5 31 IO) aresuggested
as renderings alternative to ‘ rubies ’
2. P B n I n ~(see R U BY , I ) for 0 - p pZninim.
perhaps coral.
Certainly ‘ rubies ’ is not a good render-
ing. The words, ’ the catching’ (718 ; EV, ;inprobably,
‘price’) of wisdom is above that of rubies,’ in Job2818,
1 This interpretation is due to Gr2tzUgd. Zt. 1885, pp. 5 4 9 ~ 3 ; insteadof ‘13 oxy, we get a good sense (see above). d does not
it has been overlooked by even the most recent cornmenfators.
For otherviews, on the whole very improbable ones, see Wright,
Ze&ana?z, 124 f: ; Now. and GASm. decline to offer any
opinion.
2 Bickell : ‘ If thou hold thy peace (QiI2.l) before a fool, thou
art wise.‘
3 Targ. Joh28 16 has, for ninKi, n ~ \ ~ i ~ = u a v 8 a p a r of
q Nedavim, 12, as will be explained under Vow, $ 41, and also
Theophr., etc. viz. native realgar, or ruby sulphur (disulphide
of arsenic). I; is uied to a limited extent as a pigment, hut can-
not be intended here (indication however of colour).
4 With Aq., Pesh., some Hed. MSS, aAd virtually @ (bvOp6-
;ious=niN). Sym. and Theod. support MT.
895
CORD
vould seem to imply that a fishery was in the case,l and,
f two of our best critics may be followed, the nobles of
ierusalem are described in Lam. 47 as ‘ purer than snow,
whiter than milk, more ruddy than branches of pinixim ’
L e . , obviously, of coral).2 Another reference to
k?tzinint, of considerable interest, occurs in Ps. 45 14 [13],
&,herewe should no doubt read @*imfor ilnm ; the
whole line should perhaps run, ‘ on her neck is a wreath
>f pZninim ’ (see Che. Ps.P)nd Zoc. ).
In the somewhat obscure question as to identification
>f the substance or substances intended by rum6th and
3. Coral-like p&zinim, it ought not to be overlooked
that certain stonesvalued by the ancients
stones. seem to have been named from their
resemblance to cord. Pliny, before passing from the
myx and alabaster group, speaks of a valuable ’ corallite
stone’ found in Asia, of a white hue, somewhat approach-
ing that of ivory, and in some degree resembling it ( H N
3613) ; also of corallis, a native of India and Syene,
resembling minium in appearance : and of coralloachates
or coral-agate, commonly found in Crete, and there
called the ‘ sacred ’ agate, similar to coral, and spotted.
all over, like the sapphire, with drops of gold (37 54 56).
Cp M ARBLE .
COR-ASHAN (y&ib), I s. 3030. See B ORASHAN .
CORBAN ( K O P B ~ N[Ti.], KOPBAN [WH];Mk. 711f’,
transliteration of Heb. I???, an offering ; explained
by Gopov, ‘gift’ (cp Mt. 1 5 5 ; similarly Jos. Ant. iv.
4 4 : ~ o p p B v ) , a kind of votive offering: an object
devoted to the deity, and therefore tabooed. Josephus
( L c .) uses the word in speaking of the Nazirites who were
dedicated to God as a corban, and of the temple treasure,
which was inviolable (BJii. 9 4 ; ...
T ~ ieppbv
Y fhpaupbv,
Kaheirac 66 KOPPWVBS; cp Mt. 2 7 6 K O ~ ~ ~ V ’B STheo- ).
phrastus, among foreign oaths, especially quotes the
corbnn as one belonging to the Jews, which was forbidden
to the Tyrians (cp Jos. c. Ap. 122, 167). I t is easy
to see that by interdicting himself by a vow a man was
able to refrain from using or giving away any particular
object, and might thus evade any troublesome obligation.
Several abuses crept in (cp Ned. 5 6 ) , and, in the passage
cited (Mk. 7 1 1 cp Mt. 1 5 5 ) , Jesus denounces a system
which allowed a son, by pronouncing the word ’ corban ’
[and thus vowing a thing to God), to relieve himself of
the duty of helping a parent. Cp comm. on Mt. 155
Mk. 7 IT, and especially L. Cappellus on Mt. 1 5 5 ; also
PREP)5 42.
CORBE ( x o p B ~ [BA]), I Esd.512 AV=Ezra29,
ZACCAI.
CORD. There is no scarcity of Hebrew terms to
denote cord of one kind or another.
Among the commonest words are \?! (zebelot+
‘( bind), and
lc; yefher(\/to stretch), both used of cords or ropes for drawing,
hauling (cp z S . 1 7 1 3 EV ‘rope’) 5 of tent-ropes (Is. 3320 Job
421)6 and of ship’s tackle : see &HIP, TENT, S 3. Yethev (d
in Jkdg. veupci), which seems to denote rather ‘gut,’ and its
derivative lc’g, are used also specially of bowstrings (Ps.112
21 IZ [13]). Less frequent terms are : p)qn (zzzt (.\/to sew),
1 The text may, however, be corrupt ; is a singular term.
We might emend to nxwn~i,:(yisdom) is esteemed ’ (Che.).
2 The common rendering is . ..
more ruddy in body than
peninim’ (cp EV). But ‘in body’ (~sy)appears superfluous
here: whereas if we transpose the preposition, and read ’sya
re rebent either ’yy or oxy. See Bu. and Bickell, ad Lc.
In P of the Hexateuch it is the Comprehensive term for all
offerings ‘ presented to God, bloody or bloodless ; see also Ezek.
20 28 40 43.
4 See Levy, CAaZa’. WoYfeuJ., S.V. Ipp NHWS, s.7~. D$p,
D$jl [mutilations of the formula, which are equally binding,
B AN , $ I , S ACRIFICE, Vow.
5 For I K. 2031 see TURBAN.
6 Job4 21 RV ‘ tent-cord,’ RVw. AV ‘excellency.’ @, how-
ever expresses 1~2’1032 rpq &, ‘Surely when he blows
upo; them, they wither.’ This is preferable (so Beer).
836
 CORE
‘thread’ (Gen. 1423 Judg. 1812 C a n t . 4 3 ; AV ‘fillet,’ RV
‘ line’
. in Jer. 52 21) ; a??? ni@j*h ( d t o encircle, go round),
Is. 3 24 RV ‘ rope’ (AV rent) ; n-?? ‘n6lzbth (cp Ass. ahttrc,
‘fetter’), Judg. 15 13, etc.; j*n? jdtJziZ, N u . 1 5 38, etc., Judg.
1G g (AV thread, RV string), (for Gen. 3s I8 25 see RING, D I) ;
and 12, JJcF : see LINE.
The materials available were strips of skin or hide (cp
the legend of the Carthaginian Byrsn), or the intestines
of animals, especially the goat or camel (cp m’above),
flax (Ezek. d o 3 ) , and rushes. It is ropes of rushes that
are meant by uxoivlov and mraprlov, 6 ’ s equivalents for
5xn and Bin respectively. Zxoivlov occurs twice in NT-
Jn. 21s ( a scourge of cords), Acts2732 (ropes of a ship).
The weaving together of two or more ropes for
greater strength was customary : cp Eccles. 412, ‘ the
threefold cord ( d i t ! ? o:ng) is not quickly broken.’
p n j oqn’ ‘green withes’ (EV), ‘which hac1 not been
dried,’ were employed in binding Samson (Judg. 168).
Greater flexibilky, for the purpose of tying, was thus
ensured, and the knots were less liable to slip ancl the
cord to split.
From the idea of ‘line, cord,’ etc., is readily obtained the
meaning of ‘measuring-line’ (cp z S. S B Am. 7 17,sin I K.
7 15, )p I K. 7 23, 59no Ezek. 40 3) ;1 hence, further, that of the
part ‘measured off,’ the ‘lot’ or ‘inheritance’ (cp 5 l n Josh.
199, pi. in Ps. 186 is]).
O n the ‘cords’ (crpwia) worn by the unchaste women of
Babylon (Ear. 6 43), see Fritzsclie ad ~ O C .
CORE ( ~ 0 [BSA ~ s Ti. W H ) , Ecclus. 45 18 Jude I T
AV, RV KORAH(9.v.).
CORIANDER (12; KOPION [BAFL] ; 2 .Ex. 1631
Nu. 1 1 7 t ) is a plant indigenous to the Mediterranean
area, Corinndma sntivum, L., as all agree. The
Hebrew name, which Lagarde ((;A 57) believes to be
of I n d o - h o p e a n origin, seems identical with the yoiS
which the scholiast on Dioscorides ( 3 6 4 ) affirms to be
the Punic equivalent of K6piov ; and the identity of the
ant is thus assured. The manna which is likened to
2s seed is also said to be ‘ small, small as hoar-
frost upon the ground,’ and is elsewhere said to resemble
bdellium. These characters suit the so-called seed
(really fruit) of the coriander, which is about the size of
a peppercorn. N. M.--W. T. T.-D.
CORINTH ( KOPINFJ~C). The secret of Corinthian
history lies in the close relation of the city to the com-
merce of the Mediterranean. Even before the develop-
ment of trade by sea the wealth of Corinth was inevitable
owing to its position on the Isthmus, the ‘ bridge of the
sea’ (Pind. (stit. iii. 38, ‘door of the Peloponnese,’ Xen.
Ages. 2). For navigation and far-reaching commercial
enterprises no city was more favourably placed. Its
territory was unsuited for agriculture (Strabo 382) ; the
more distinct, therefore, was the vocation of its inhabit-
ants for a seafaring life. The Phoenicians were early
attracted by the advantages of the site. There a-emany
traces of their presence at Corinth. At the,foot of the
Acrocorinthus, Mellcarth, the god of Tyre (see Pwm-
XICIA), was adored by the Corinthians as the protector
of navigation under the name Melicertes (Paus. ii. 1 3 ) .
The armed Aphrodite (Astarte), had a temple on the
summit of the hill (Str. 379, valFiov: Paus. ii. 4 6 $ ,
sharing it wjth the sun-god ; id.ii. 5 I) ; to her in later
times a thousand female votaries paid service with their
bodies, adopting a custom well known in Syrian worship
(Strabo, 378).
‘ The juxtaposition of the two Corinthian harbours
(Lechzenm on the Corinthian Gulf, ancl Cenchrke, with
Schcenus, on the Saronic) made it easy to tranship
cargoes ; and, as the voyage round Cape Mal& was
1 Similarly u,yo~viovand urrapdov.
9 T h e Greek name, according to Fluck. and Hanh. ( ~ 9 3 is )~
d u e t o ‘the offensive odour it exhales when handled, and which
reminds one of hugs-in Greek, rc6prr.’
3 T h e Punic y a d appears again in Lat. git or gith, which is
black cummiu, iVigeZZa sativa, L. See FITCH, I.
4 This, rather than ‘round,’ seems t o he the meaning of D?D?F
(Di. on Exod. 16 74).
29 897
CORINTH
difficult, the mariners of Asia and Italy found it desirable
to land their goods a t Corinth, so that the possessors of
the Isthmus received dues from these as well as from
whatever was brought from the Peloponnese by land ’
(Str. 378 ; cp Dio Chrys. Or. viii. 5, +~ 6 X i swump &v
rp&y Z K E ~ T O ) . In consequence of her rapid commercial
expansion, the arts also awalcened in Corinth to a new
life, especially those of metal-work and pottery, heirlooms
of Phcenician influence (cp Paus. ii. 3 3 ; P1. H N . 343).
Trade became wholesale. The establishment of the
Isthmian games in the sanctuary of Poseidon, near
the bay of Schcenus, in ‘ t h e wooded gorge of the
isthmus’ (Pind. ; Str. 380), elevated Corinth into a
distinct centre of Hellenic life (Str. 378). So from the
earliest times the epithet ’ wealthy ’ was especially re-
served for Corinth (d@veibs, Hom. 21. 2570; dxpia,
Pind. OL 13 4 ; Thuc. 1 q),and although the rise of
Athens finally destroyed her dreams of naval empire
she reinained the first mercantile city of Greece.
This prosperity found a rude ending in 146 B. c. when
the place was pillaged by the Roman consul, Lucins
Mummius, and levelled with the ground ; but the re-
establishment of the city was inevitable. In 44 B.C.
Julius Czsar founded on the old site the CoZonia Laus
/ u 6 a Couinthus., T h e nucleus of its population consisted
of freedmen (Paus. ii. 1 2 , Str. 381). Most of the
names of Corinthian Christians indicate either a Roman
cr a servile origin (e.g., Gaius, Crispus, I Cor. 114 ;
Fortnnatns, Achaicus, I Cor. 1617 ; Tertius, Rom.
1 6 2 2 ; Quartus, Rom. 1 6 2 3 ; Justns, Acts 187). The
Kew Corinth, by the mere force of geographical causes,
became as of old the most prosperous city of Greece,
and the chosen abode of luxury and ‘abysmal profligacy’
(Str. 378 382 ; Athen. 13 573 ; cp the saying, od 7ravrh
iv8pdr 6s H6piv06v 600’ b rrhofir). It was also the
capital of the province, and the seat of the governor
of Achaia (Acts 1812).
For description, see Paus. ii. if: ; c p Frazer, Paus. 320.38.
Pausanias distinguishes the Roman from the Greek remains ;
few vestiges are now found of either city though the American
ai-chzologists have recently made impgrtant discoveries (see
/ H S 1s 333 [‘98] : among other inscriptions one ‘ of uncertain
i a t e , hut as late as the imperial times, ’reading ‘ ~ ~ a y o y $
‘Eppaiw v ’).
Corinth, like Athens and Argos, naturally attracted a
l x g e Jewish population (Philo, Leg. ad Cai. 36 ; cp
Justin, D i d I ). The edict of Claudius, banishing the
Jews from Rome, must have augmented the number of
liebrew families in Corinth (Acts 182 ; cp Suet. CZnud.
2 5 ) ; see A QUILA . As in other cities (e.g., Iconium,
Acts 141, Thessalonica, Acts 1 7 4 ) , a considerable
number of gentiles had been attracted to the Jewish
synagogue, and their conversion would be the first-fruits
of Paul’s work. His decisive breach with the Jews,
and his adoption of the house of the Roman or Latin
l i t i u s Justus as his place of instruction (cp Acts 19g),
enabled Paul to reach the otherwise inaccessible gentile
population (mostly of Italian origin : Acts 188, rohXo1
rzv KopwOiwv ~ K O L O V T E&S~ U T E U O Y ) . Aquila, on the
other hand, seems to have enjoyed his greatest success
among the Jews (Acts 18z8), though the Corinthian
church remained predominantly gentile in character.
In conformity with his principle of seeking the centres
of comniei-cia1 activity, Paul visited Corinth on his de-
parture from Athens (Actsl81). For the importance of
this step as regards the development of Paul’s mission-
ary designs, see P AUL . Converts were made chiefly
among the gentiles, of the poorer class (Acts 188 I Cor.
1 2 6 6 TI l 2 z ) , although some Jews believed (see CRISPUS);
and some persons of importance (see ERASTUS, GAIUS,
perhaps also C HLOE ). The accession of Crispus and
of Gaius was so important that Paul forsook his rule
and baptized them with his own hand ( I Cor. 114-16).
H e lays special stress upon his claim to be regarded as
sole founder of the Corinthian church (I Cor. 36 4 IS).
This claim is not contradicted by z Cor. 119 ( ‘ who was
peached . . . by me and Silvanus and Timothy ’), for
898
 CORINTHIANS, EPISTLE8 TO THE
z Cor. is addressed to the Christians of Achaia generally
as well as to the Corinthians, while I Cor. is written
more especially to the church of Corinth.
The apostle spent eighteen months in Corinth on this
occasion (Acts 1811). On his next recorded visit he
stayed three months (Acts 203). On a supposed inter-
mediate visit to Corinth and on the correspondence that
took place, see CORINTIIIANS, $S 9 f.,13. On the
character of Paul‘s teaching see below, and cp P AUL ,
A POLLOS .
As to the effect of Paul‘s letters and presence the N T
gives no information ; but the letter of Clement, written,
perhaps, about 97 A. I). , shows that the moral tone of
the Corinthian church improved, though the friction
between parties continued, as indeed we should expect
from the social conditions obtaining in such a city.
Hegesippus visited the church about I 39 A. D., and was
favourably impressed by the obedience and liberality of
its members, and the activity of its bishop Dionysius
(Eus. HE iv. 2.)
T h e two epistles written to the Corinthians are re-
markable for the variety of their local colouring. The
illustrations are drawn chiefly from gentile life :-the
wild-beast fight ( I Cor. 1532) ; the stadium and boxing
match (I Cor. 9 24-27) ; the theatre ( I Cor. 4 g 7 31) ; the
garland of Isthmian pine, the prize in the games ( I Cor.
9.5) ; the idol festivals ( I Cor. 810 l O z o f . ) ; the syssitia,
so common a feature of Greek social life (I Cor. 1027).
W. J. W.
CORINTHIANS, Epistles t o the.* I t will be un-
necessary to repeat here the familiar story of the founding
1. Relations of the church at Corinth, which is else-
with Gorinth. where set in its place in the life of the
apostle (see PAUL). According to the
scheme of chronology adopted in this article it would
fa11 in the years 50-52 A D . (48-jo Harnack, 52-54
Lightfoot, otherwise vou Soden ; see C HRONOLOGY , §
71). In the spring of the latter year Paul left Corinth.
Aquila and Priscilla accompanied him as far as Ephesus,
where they stayed behind while he went on to Jerusalem.
This journey and the visit to the Galatian churches
(Acts 1823) would take up the whole of the later spring
or summer of A.D. 52, and it would not be until the
autumn of that year that the apostle returned to
Ephesus.
In the meantime events had moved at Corinth. The
Alexandrian Jew Apollos, by this time an instructed
Christian, had gone thither and his preaching had a
great effect. Other teachers were at work there in a
spirit less friendly to Paul. Factions were formed, and,
when-Paul wrote his first extant letter to the Corinthians
some two years later, had begun to make serious
mischief. The aDostle was now settled at EDhesus.
2. Earlier c o ~ which,
- on an average voyage, would not
respondence. be more than a sail of a week or ten
davs from Corinth.2 News would thus
pass easily to and’fro : ana Paul was evidently kept
well informed of what passed at Corinth. At least
one earlier letter of his has been lost to us ( I Cor. 5 9 ) ,
unless, as some have thought, a fragment of it remains
embedded in z Cor. 6 14-7 I (on this view, which should
probably on the whole be rejected, see below, 18).
The purport of the letter, which the Corinthian Christians
somewhat misunderstood, was to warn them against
intercourse with immoral heathen. When we remember
the laxity of Corinthian morals we cannot be surprised
that other and graver aberrations of this Bind had taken
place among them. The state of things disclosed by
3. Extant some of the apostle’s visitors at Ephesus,
Epistles. notably by members of thefumiZia of a lady
called Chloe (I Cor. 111), gave him so much
1 IIpbs I h p w B l o u s [Ti.WHl.
2 I t took Aristides four days to get from Corinth to Miletus
(Friedlander, Sitfengesch.2 15); but Cicero and his brother
Quintus were both ahout a fortnight on shipboard (ad Attic.
3 g, 6 8, 9: quoted by Heinrici (after Hug), Das zweite
Sen&chrci6en, etc., 48).
899
anxiety that he took pen in hand to write our First
Epistle. At the same time he replied to a series of
pestions put to him in a letter which he had received
:perhaps through Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus :
I Cor. 16x7) from the church at Corinth. These two
things--the tidings which he had heard of disorders in
the church, and certain definite inquiries put to him-
xcount satisfactorily for the contents of the First
Epistle (see below, 1s 14-16). So far all is clear, except
perhaps as to the exact date at which the epistle was
sent, though it may be placed provisionally about
Easter of A.D. 55. There is also no doubt as to the
general nature of the circumstances under which our
Second Epistle was sent. The interval which separated
it from the First Epistle cannot have been very long.
It may be assigned to the late autumn (about November)
of the same year.l From some cause or other, it is
clear, the anxiety of the apostle had increased, and had
indeed reached a pitch of great and painful tension.
The return of Titus, whom he had sent to Corinth,
relieved him of this, and he warmly expresses his
satisfaction. Then he turns to the practical question
of the collection which he was organising for the poor
Christians at Jerusalem. Before the letter is concluded,
however, he comes back (in the text as we have it) to
his opponents and writes again with no little emotion
about them. This letter was written on the way to
Corinth, probably from Macedonia, and the apostle is
about to pay to the church a visit which he repeatedly
calls his third ( z Cor. 1214 131).
This brief outline, however, evades a number of
difficulties.
Considered ouite broadlv and zenerallv. the course of events
~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~~
---
is clear e n o d : hit. whek we at?emnt to’zive them Drecisiun in
I
dits1 difficulties s$ng u; at everyAstep. The
4. Difficulties quesdons which arise are also exceedingly intri-
in detail. cate, so that to state them satisfactorily is no
easy matter. They have nearly all been brought
out by the research of the last five-and-twenty years ; and we
shall perhaps succeed hest in threading our way through them
by taking the several steps-logical if not exactly chronologrical
-by which they may be supposed to have arisen.
The data which we take over from the First Epistle
are : ( I ) the existence of an active opposition to Paul
on the part not only of unbelieving Jews but also of
certain sections of Juclaising Christians at Corinth ; and
( z ) the occurrence in the church there of a gross case of
what we should ,describe as incest ( I Cor. 5 I ). The
maln question which meets us is, how far does the
Second Epistle deal with these same data, aud how far
have the circumstances altered? Before we can formu-
late an answer to this question, however, it is neccssary
first to decide whether or not we are to interpose a lost
epistle between the two which have come down to us.
T h e Second Epistle is full of allusions to a previous
letter, and the older commentators with one consent
5. Intermediate assumed that this was the First Epistle.
Such an assumption was obvious and
letter. natural ; but, when the language of the
Second Epistle came to be closely examined,- doubts
began to arise as to whether that language could really
be satisfied by the First Epistle as it has come down
to us.
In particular it was asked whether the strong emotion under
which it seemed that this pyvious letter had been written could
apply to the First Epistle : out of much affliction and anguish
of heart I wrote unto you with many tears’ ( z Cor. 2 4 ) ; and
again, the severe heart-searchings described in 2 Cor. 77-11 did
not seem to agree with the calm practical discussions of the
First Epistle.
Since K1opper (1874)an increasing number of scholars
have replied to this decidedly in the negative. Perhaps
somewhat too’ decidedly. Although it is perfectly true
that a great part of the First Epistle is taken up with
calm practical discussions, the whole epistle is not in
this strain.
1 On this reckoning i d d p v m (2 Cor. 9 z ) will mean not ‘a
yearago’ hut ‘last year.’ The Macedonian year, like the Jewish,
began with October. See YEAR.
900
 CORINTHIANS, EPISTLES TO THE
Many passages, especially i n the earlier chapters, must have
cost the writer no slight emotion. Such would he (e.g.) the
scathing irony of I Cor. 48-13 (the Corinthians already enjoying
the rich abundance of the Messianic reign while the poor apostles
are maltreated like gladiators in the arena); the whole of the
next section I Cor. 414-21 which ends with a threat that the
apostle will Aome to them kith a rod ; and then the section on
the incestuous man in which he projects himself in spirit into
the president's chair in their assembly and solemnly hands over
the offender to Satan.
I t is by no means incredible that passages like these would
stand out io Paul's memory after he had despatched his letter,
and that he should work himself up into a state of great and
everl feverish anxiety as to the way in which they would he
received. The fact that a considerable fraction of the church
should have made themselves, 2 5 it seems, in somesort accomplices
with the offending person, might well make the apostle feel that
the moment was extremely critical and that the result might be
nothing less than the break-up of the church.
This leads us to the further question with which that
just stated is bound up. Along with the allusions to a
6. Xituation previous lcttcr there 'are in the Second
in Cor. Epistlealso allusions to what was evidently
a great crisis in the history of the church.
W a s this crisis tge same as that u-hich is contemplated
in the First Epistle, or was it wholly distinct?
The scholars who first maintained the view that there was a
lost letter between the two extant epistles were coutent to
acquiesce in the older view that the descriptions of 2 Cor25-11
75-16 had reference to a state of thing' growing directly out of
the situation presented in I Cor. 6. There ton there is a single
offender, who appears to have a hacking in the church, and the
apostle is aware that the position is full of danger: the machina-
tions of Satan are not hidden (z Cor. 211).
It must be confessed that the situation of I Cor. 5
fits on extremely well to that of z Cor. 25-11, except in
- - ... one uarticular. That is. as the more
7. ramalof recent writers on the epistles (Wciz-
agreement
sacker, Pfleiderer, KrenBel [Beiti-tige], fact of the intermediate letter, thus seem to be assured ;
ctr2L1:" "
I. 0.
and Schmiedel, Julicher) for the most part
urge, that the treatment described in
2 Cor. 26, which is accepted as adequate to the occasion
by ?'aril, seems inadequate to the very gross offence of
I Cor. 51. There is also considerable difficulty in
assigning the part of the injured person in z Cor. 7 12 :
' S o although I wrote unto you, [I wrote] not for his cause
that did the wrong, nor for his cause that suffered the
wrong, but that your earnest care for us might be made
manifest,' ete.
If the offending person of I Cor. 5 was really let off with a
comparatively slight punishment there must have been extenuat-
ing circumstances of which we are not told. Such circumstances
might be that the 'father's wife' was not in the strict sense a
wife hut a concubine (the father being probably a heathen) ; and
we might have supposed that the father was dead. In such a
case Paul with his strong sympathy for human infirmity, and
his readiness to make allowance for a convert brought up in the
laxity of heathenism, might conceivably have accepted an
expiation short of that which the circumstances would seem at
first sight to demand. The supposition that the father was de+
would fall through, however, if 'his cause that suffered the wrong
(708 B S L K ~ ~ & O F )refcrred to him ; and it does not seem satis-
factory that a sin of this kind should he regarded only in the
light of personal injury to another.
Accordingly the tendency among those recent German
-
writers who have gone into the question more fully than
8. Other ex- any others, has been to offer a wholly
planations of different explanation of the state of written
things implied in the Second Epistle.
'Or' 25-11'
. Thev.,. as a rule. take the offence on
which the situation turns in this epistle to be some
personal affront or insult put upon Paul (so IHilgenfeld,
Mangold, Weizsiiclcer, Pfleiderer, Schmiedel, J ulicher ;
Beyschlag gives the alternative that the insult may have
been oKered to Timothy), not in connection with the
case of the incestuous man, but rather growing out of
the revolt against his authority as an apostle.. In keep-
ing with this, most of them would explain TOO (isi~q- discussion
8&70s as a n indirect reference to Paul himself.
This, however, again seems strained and unnatural, and indeed
inconsistent with theexegesisoftheversewhere Paul is mentioned
(u. 12 'your earnest care for us'; T$Y unovrS$v +pOu . ;
I. +&p
GPO") in such a way as almost certainly to distil! uish him
from the injured person. Krenkel it seems to us rigftly urges
this and would take the passage As referrin.- to some brivate
quarrel between two members of the Corinth?an church (Beitr.
304-307). We know from I Cor. 6 that such quarrels were rife
901
it Corinth and the interpretation thus suggested suits the choice
If words (88~mjuasand A S q 0 e k ) better than any other. The
,hjection would he that we have to draw largely upon the
magination to explain how a matter like this, which we should
lave thought might be settled calmly enough, became the
:atw of such acute tension between the apostle and a large
;ection of the church.
W e have then three hypotheses, each with some
idvantages and some counterbalancing drawbacks : ( I )
.hat the reference is to the incestuous man-which
could greatly simplify the situation so far as the two
:pistles are concerned, but could be held only on the
issumption of peculiar qualifying circumstances in the
x s e which it is not easy for us to imagine ; ( 2 ) that
[he reference is to some direct personal insult to Paul-
i hypothesis which, by introducing a n intermediate letter,
%nablesus to construct one which will suit the allusions
somewhat better than the extant First Epistle, but in
3ur opinion forces 6 rE&~qOek and makes the situation
in the Second Epistle a tantalising duplicate of that
in the First, besides (it might seem) inconveniently
xowding events between the two epistles ; ( 3 ) that the
reference is neither to Paul nor to the incestuous man,
bnt to a quarrel between two unknown persons-which
satisfies 6 d&KqOdr, but is open to some of the same
Jbjcctions as the last, and is not so helpful.
W e shall see below that, in spite of its apparent
ittractiveness, the first of these hypotheses must be
Ziven up. There is a break between the two epistles :
there must have been a t least one intervening communi-
Eation-and if one, probably two conmiimications-
between Paul and the church at Corinth; and the
ispect of things has changcd not simply once, but
probably twice. The fact of the new situation, and the
but in regard to particulars we have hardly data enough
to enableus to judge. W e cannot easily bring ourselves
to think that the person directly injured is Paul : at the
same time he appears to be someone closely cQnnected
with him. Timothy would meet the conditions better
than any one we can think of ; but neither the injured
person nor the aggressor can be identified more precisely.
Along with the question as to an intermediate letter
goes the further question as to a n unrecorded visit Raid
by P a i l to Corinth.
Unlike the letter, this visit is not purely hypothetical. In z
Cor. 12 14 and 131 the apostle speaks expressly of his approaching
visit as the third. This implies that we must
9. Unrecorded insert another, not mentioned by the historian,
visit. somewhere between Acts 1818 and 202-or
rather, we may say, somewhere in the three
years spent by Paul at Ephesus. We have seen that his com-
munications with the church at Corinth were frequent ' we have
seen also that the voyage was easy. The silence of AAt?(which
dismisses two years in a verse: ~ D I o ) , therefore, is 110 real
obstacle.
Is the visit to be placed betore or after the First
Epistle?
I t is most tempting to go with the majority of recent critics
and place it after. The couspicuous fact about this visit is that
it was a painful one (& A J q : 2 Cor. 2 I). 1 f so, what could
be more natural than to conkect it with the letter which was
'withmany tears?' Both alike, it mi-ht seem ~ h o u l dhe
placed on the line of strained relations wgich led ';p to the
Second Epistle. The unrecorded visit would, in that case, pre-
cede the lost letter. We might imagine, in view of 2 Cor. 10 IO,
that Paul had been summoned over to Corinth hastily that
there his malady had come on, that he had broken 'down
physically and been obliged to return, leaving matters to all
appearance worse than he found them; that he then wrote a
letter to undo the effect of this disaster; that this letter was
strongly worded, and, after it had been sent, caused hiin great
anxiety; and that it was his relief from this anxiety on the
coming- of Titus that was the immediate occasion of the
Second Epistle.
Such comhinations are tempting ; hut they lead us on to the
of the next mint which has a direct and oerhaos a
I I
crucial hearing upon thgm.
In I Cor. 7 6 5 the apostle announces his intention of
coming to Corinth by the longer land route tlirou_nh
Macedonia. This, as a matter of fact, is the
lo. route that he was actually taking at the time
plans. when he wrote the Second Epistle. In the
interval, however, he must have changed his mind, not
902
 CORINTHIANS, EPISTLES TO THE
once but twice; or, rather, he must have changed it
and afterwards reverted to his original plan. From z
Cor. 115J we learn expressly that he had a t one monient
decided to go straight from Ephesus to Corinth, thence
to Macedonia, and then to return again to Corinth.
Wheu he formed this decision he seems to have been well
pleased with the Corinthians and they with him ; his motive in
that, twice over, both on going and returning, they may have
the benefit of this presence (2 Cor. 115). He did not carry out
this plan because. after it had heen formed, his relations to the
Corinthians underwent a chanqe. He tells us that he would
not go to them because, if he hLd gone it must have been 'in
grief' ( z Cor. 2 I). None the less his cdange of plan was made
one of the accusations against him, and was set down to fickle-
ness of purpose (z Cor. 117).
This being so, however, are we not precluded from
interposing any visit between the conceiving of the in-
tention described in z Cor. 115 (the short voyage and
the double visit) and the writing of the Second Epistle ?
It is not only, as Schmiedel argues ( H C 53), that the feelings
of the apostle when he made his plan and when he paid the
supposed visit were different-in the ,one case satisfaction with
the Corinthians, in the other case pain-but that a visit of any
kind is inconsistent with the language used. If Paul had paid
such a visit he would have kept to his intention (not broken
it), and the charge of fickleness must at least have assunled
another form.
We must therefore, with some reluctance, abandon the
idea of bringing the painful visit and the painful letter
into juxtaposition. T h e only other place for the former
seems to be in the part of Paul's stay at Ephesus
anterior to the First Epistle, and towards the middle or
later part of it (i.e . , not far from, and probably before,
the lost letter ; I Cor. 69 ; cp Schmiedel, op. cit. 54).
T h e supposition that the second visit was only contem-
plated, not paid, appears to be excluded by z Cor. 132.
We observe also, in passing, that the history of these
changes of plan goes far to dispose of the arguments in
favour of the supposition that there is no lost letter
between the two epistles.
The only way t o make the First Epistle referred to directly in
the Second is to regard certain passages in it as hauntin- the
apostle and causing him trouble as t o its reception. At th:time
when he conceived the plan set down in 2 Cor. 115,however
his mind was free from trouble : the Corinthians and he were 0;
the best of terms. This alone would sever the links which have
seemed to hind the two letters together. They must be con-
nected closely or not at all.
When Paul wrote I Corinthians Timothy was not with him.
We should infer from Acts1922 that before that date he had
been already sent into Macedonia. This
11. Movements agrees perfectly with the turn of phrase in I
of Timothy. Cor. 16 T O : ' If TLnoth,y come, see that he be
with yon without fear. Before the despatch
of the Second Epistle he had rejoined Paul, as he is associated
with him in the opening salutation ( z Cor. 1I). If the suggestion
above holds, it was probably he who brought news of the events
which led up to the second crisis. In any case the dealing with
that crisis at its height was committed not to Timothy but to
the stronger hands of Titus.
Assuming that there was an intermediate letter
between I and z Cor. it is probable that Titus was the
bearer of it ( z Cor. 1218), as he was
12' OfTitus' also the bearer of our Second Epistle
( 2 Cor. 8 6 2 4 ) .
A small qroup of scholars, including Hausrath and Schmiedel,
would assign to Titus yet another earlier visit, on the husiness
of the collection, soon after the writing of the First Epistle:
hut the hypothesis is invented to snit the theory that 2 Cor.12
is not an integral part of our Second Epistle and necessitates
the invention of a number of other purely hGpothetica1 occur-
rences (among them a fifth, or third lost letter), nearly all of
them duplicates of others that are better attested. I t may be
rejected without hesitation.
The sequence of events, as far as we can ascertain it,
seems to have been this :-l
(i.) While Paul is absent at Jerusalem
13. SeClUenCe ADoIIo~arrives at Corinth. where he areaches
of events. with success (Acts 1827). '
(ii.) Paul takes up his ahode at Ephesus
in the summer of A.D. 52, remaining there until the summer of
A'.D. 55.
(iii.) Early in this period Apollos quits Corinth and certain
Judaising teachers arrive there. The beginnings are laid of
differenceswhich soon harden into parties.
(iv.) About, or somewhat after, the middle of the period Paul
Davs the church a brief disciulinarv visit. ;v A 6 m ( z Cor. 2 I :
1 With the dates given here cp those in CHRONOLOGY, 71.
903
ee above, 5 TO). H e also, after his return, writes the Zusost letter
tf I Cor. 5 9.
(v.) The household of Chloe bring news of an ominous develop-
nent of the spirit of faction ( I Cor. 111), and a little later
jtephanas Fortunatus and Achaicus arrive at Ephesns (I Cor
.GI,), perhaps as beirers of a letter to the apostle from the
:hurch at Corinth seeking his advice on various matters.
(vi.) Partly in consequence of what he had heard, and partly
n answer to that letter, Paul writes Firs/ Curinthians in the
;pring of A . D . 55 taking occasion to correct a wrong impression
lrawn from thelbst letter ( I Cor. 6 93).
(vii.) The epistle thus written has the desired effect, and for
be moment all goes well (*Cor. 112-16). The apostle lets the
Zorinthians know his programme of zCor. 1 151: Timothy
arrives at Corinth and now, or at the time of chap. 8, returns
LO Ephesus.
(viii.) Another sharp controversy arises, beginning perhaps in
jome well-meant hut feeble action on the part of Timothy, and
soon involving the whole question of the apostle's position and
Luthority.
(ix.) On hearing of this from Timothy Paul writes a secund
lost letter, the tone of which is severe and nncompromising. It
is sent by Titus, who at the same time has instructions in regard
to the collection.
(x.) After Titus has gone, Paul becomes moreand more anxious
as to the effect his last letter is likely to have on the Corinthians.
He leaves Ephesus, having about this time heen in immiaent
peril there. H e stops at Troas. Still no news.
(xi.) Titus at last returns to him in Macedonia and dispels his
fears. The Second Epi.ytle is written and is sent by Titus and
two others (z Cor. 8 1822). Its main tenor is thankfulness ; hut
the collection is pressed, and the growth of one party (probably
the Christ-party) leads t o some emphatic strictures.
(x,ii.) Towards the end of December A . D . 55 Paul reaches
Cormth. He stays there three mouths (Acts203), during which
he writes the Epistle to the Romans.
FIRST EPIsTLE.-We have seen that the occasion of
the First Epistle was two-fold : ( I ) certain tidings which
had reached Paul as to various dis-
14' Of orders existing in the church at
Corinth : ( 2 ) certain questions put to
him in an official letter from the chlrrch. Thk dis-
orders were : (i.) a number of factions which raised the
flag of party spirit and used the names of promitlent
leaders to give colour to their own self-assertiveness.
On these more will be said below (I 16). The subject
covers 110-421. (ii.) A bad case of immoral living
which too much reflected a general laxity in the church
(5 6 ~ z - z o ) . (iii. ) Litigiousness,' which did not scruple
to have recourse to heathen law-courts (61-1r). (iv.)
An indecorous freedom in worship, exemplified by the
disuse of the female headdress (112-16). (v.) Still
worse disorders at the qapE or love-feast, which was
followed by the eucharist (1117-34). And we may
perhaps include under this head (vi. ) the denial by some
of the resurrection, dealt with in chap. 15.
The last three points may have been raised by the
official letter. This certainly contained questions about
marriage (answered in ch. 7 ) ; probably also about re-
lations to heathen practices, such as the eating of meats
offered to idols (ch. 8 continued in 9 1-11I ) ; and possibly
some inquiry as to the relative value of spiritual gifts.
Chap. 1 1 - 9 is introductory, and ch. 1 6 au epilogue of
personal matter containing instructions as to the collec-
tion, and details as to Paul himself and his companions.
The only points that need perhaps to be more
particularly drawn out are the connection of chaps.
110-421 and 81.111.
The first tracks out the spirit of faction to its origin in the
conceit of a worldly-minded wisdom, which is contrasted with
the simplicity of the Gospel-a simplicity how-
15. 1 cor. ever, which does not exclude the higher disdom
Iro-4z1 and that comes from God (117.2~6). Then, in
8 1-111. 3 1-4 5 , the true position of human teachers is
stated. They are but stewards, whose duty is
not to put forward anything of their own, but only to administer
what is committed to them by God. The Christian has but one
foundation and one judge, namely Christ. 46-21applies these
general truths to the circumstances of the case with biting irony,
which, however, soon changes to affectionate entreaty, and that
again t o sharp admonition.
The sequence of the argument in 8 1-11T should not be lost
sight of. Inch. 8 is laid down the principle which should guide
conduct in such matters as the eating of meat that might
have come from heathen sacrifices. This principle is the suh-
ordination of personal impulse t o the good of others. In ch. 9
Paul points out the working of the principle in his own case ;
it is in deference to it that he waives his right to claim support
from the Church, in deference to it that he exercises severe self-
904
 CORINTHIANS, EPISTLES TO THE
control, like that of rnnners in a race. The history of Israel
showed what an utter mistake it was for even the most highly-
privileged to suppose themselves exempt from the necessity of
such self-control (101-13). The very nature of the Christian
Eucharist prescribed care in relation to heathen feasts (10 14-22). tassaqe resembles, though it is not identical with, that of the
This leads to some practical suggestions and advice (1 0 23-11 I).
Of the subject matter of the epistle the points which
16. Parties. most invite discussion are the nature of
the parties, and the spiritual gifts. The
latter are dealt with elsewhere (see GIFTS, SPIRITUAL).
As to the parties, we may remark ( I ) that the names
' Paul,' ' Apollos,' ' Cephas,' and ' Christ' represent
real titles which the parties at Corinth gave themselves.
When Paul says in 4 6 'These thing-s brethren, have I trans-
ferred by a fiction' (to adopt Dr. F'ieid's elegant translation,
O t i i ~ wNon'ic.
~ ad (06.) to myself and Apollos for your sakes
the fiction consisted, not in using names which the CorinthiaLs
did not use, but in speaking as if he and Apollos had behaved
like party-leaclers, when they had not so behaved. The whole
movement came not from them but from those who invoked their
names against their will and without their con5ent.
( 2 ) The nature of the Pan1 and the Apollos parties
is clear : they were no doubt liberal in tendency, giving a
free welcome to Gentile converts, and apt to deal too
tenderly with the vices which these brought over with
them. From this side would come such premature
emancipation as that described in 112-16. The followers
of Apollos probably also prided themselves on a kind of
Alexandrian G/zo;i.r, which is by inference condemned in
chaps. 118-216. The Petrine and the ' Christ' parties
were, on the other hand, Judaistic, claiming the authority
of the apostles at Jerusalem. Both disparaged and
attacked Paul. The Christ party, however, seems to
have gone to the greater lengths.
The Christ pnrty were Jews in the strictest sense, probably
Jews of Palestine ( z Cor. 1122). They came with commendatory
lettersfrom Jerusalem ( z Cor. 3 r). They themselves bore the title :etter. There is a parallelism equally marked between the use
of 'apostle ' in the wider acceptation (2 Cor. 11 13 12 11). They
claimed td have Christ for their Master in a sense in which
others had not ( z Cor. 10 7). And in particular they insisted
that Paul had not the full qualifications of an apostle, as these
are laid down in Acts 121 f: : he was not an eve-witness of the
conceived it) as to amount to preaching 'another Jesus' (;Cor.
114). Paul takes firm ground in his opposition to them. He
will not bate one jot of his Gospel (Gin'.) ; he will not allow that leave traces of itself. At least, before it can be assumed, the
he is behind the most apostolic of the apostles (2 Cor. 11j); he
had 'seen the Lord' as truly as they had (i.e on the road to
D:imascus, andinecstaticvision, I Cor. 9 I 1 5 8 ;'Cor. 12 18); he
had better proof of his apostleship-in his miracles ( 2 Cor.12 IZ), conditions are really different. I t would, however, be
in his insight into Christian truth (2 Cor. 11 6) in his labours
) ~ especially in the success 6f his ministry
(z Cor. 11~ 3 8 : and
among the Corinthians themselves (I Cor. 9 rf: z Cor. 3 23).
There can be little doubt that Paul's masterly ApoZogzn
carried the day ; the curtain drops for us with the close
of the Second Epistle ; but the subsequent history of the
controversy shows that the worst part of the crisis was
past, and the power of the Judaisers broken.
SECOND EPISTLE.-The Second Epistle is even more
a direct product of the historical situation than the
17. Cor. : First. W e may map out the main body
of the epistle thus : ( I ) an outpouring of
contents. thanks for recent deliverance (13-11); ( 2 ) epistle, we must remember that a letter of this length
explanations in reference to the apostle's change of
plan and the treatment of the offending person by the
Corinthian church (112-217) ; (3) a deeper ApoLogia
for his apostolic position and the distinctive character
of his Gospel (3-5); (4) more personal explanations
(6-7,) ; (5) the collection (8f:) ; (6) a warmer defence
against Judaistic attacks (10-13 IO).
The principal literary question affecting the epistle is
as to its integrity.
Putting aside mere wanton and extravagant theories, sub-
stantial arguments have been urged for maintaining that the
short paragraph of six verses, 6 14-7I, and
18. Integrity. the longer section 10-13 or 10 1-13 I O , though
the work of Paul wdre not originally part of
this epistle, but belonged to orhe: epistles now lost : 6 14-7 I
to the missing letter alluded to in I Cor. 5 9, and the VirrkajiteC
Crief (as the Germans call it) to the intermediate letter which we
have seen reason to assume between the two extant epistles.
W e may admit at once that there is a real break in
the Second Epistle at both the places noted.
The subject changes, and changes abruptly, both at 6 74 and
905
t 101. The epistle would read continuously if we were to
kip from 6 13 to 7 2 and .the few concluding. words 1311-14
vould come as well ai the end of chap. 9 as of chap. 13.
We may admit further that the subject matter of the first
nissing letter referred to in the First Epistle ('not to keep com-
,any with fornicators' was the keynote of the one, 'not to be
inequally yoked with unbelievers' of the other); and the
.ehement polemic of the last four chapters would be not unlike
"hat we should expect to find in the letter which we are led to
bosiulate by the Second.
In spite of these favouring considerations, however,
md in spite of the assent which it has met with from
:ertain critics (Pfleiderer, Hausrath, Krenkel, Schniieclel),
his latter hypothesis of the letter of four chapters must,
ve believe, be dismissed.
There was but one painful letter (2 Cor. 78, el x a l ;hJrqua
) p i s & r? ;aruroAlj, cp 24); which is reierred to in these
:hapters ( ~ O I O ~ ; ) , and therefore is not to be identified wilh
hem ; if it were, then we should have to postulate a previous
iainfnl letter further back. When the apostle wrote his painful
etter, he wrote in order to avoid the necessity of making a visit
n person (1 23); but when he wrote these chapters he was on
he point of paying a visit (12 14 13 I). Again, there are many
:oincidences of expression which connect the four chapters with
he preceding: 76=101 ( r a m r u 6 r , ofPaul himself); 568 716=
!OI f: (Oappeiv not elsewhere in Epp. Paul.); 1 1 5 3 4 822=102
mrroiOr)urs, oily twice besides) ; ~ a &u+a three times=three
imes, always in reference to himself: 67=lO4 (&rAa); v6r)pa
hree times= twice, only once besides ; 7 I j =10 5 f: ( h a m $ );
)5=10616 ( h o r p a s , only once besides in Epp. Paid). These
ire samples from the first six verses alone. We cannot use the
:omparison of 12 18 with 8 17f: 22 quite as it is used by Julicher
EinL: 65), because the two passages really refer to different
;ccasmns. 824 is proof that the aorists which precede are
:pistolary) and describe the circumstances connected with the
;ending of the present epistle, whereas in 12 18 the aorists are
itrict aqrists and point back to a former visit of Titus and his
:ompanion. The parallelism of expression, however, is so great
1s to suggest strongly that both passages belong to the same
,f ?rheovcr.ieiv in 1 2 17 f: and in 7 2 (cp 2 11); the word occurs
mly once besides in N T (I Thess. 46).
If the one hypothetical intrusioii breaks down, the
3ther should in all probability go with it.
Not one of the analogous cases to which Schmiedel appeals
really holds good ; for the balance of argument is also against
detaching Rom.lG from the e istle to the Romans (see the
commentary on that epistle by tge present writer and Mr. A. C.
Headlam). The attestation of the N T text is so varied and so
early that a displacement of this magnitude could hardly fail to
major premise that such a displacement is possible needs to Le
more fully established.
In the cases which might be quoted from the O T the
well if the whole question of the editing and trans-
mission of ancient Jewish and Christian books could be
more systematically investigated. [For a discussion of
614-71 see Class. Rev., 1890, pp. 12, q o J , 317,359 ;
and the authorities mentioned in the last place.]
If .the epistle has come clown to 11s in its integrity,
no doubt we must recognise the abruptness of Paul's
manner of writing or dictation. I n that, however, there
is nothing very paradoxical. Besides the rapid fluctna-
tions of feeling, which are so characteristic of this
could not all be written a t a single sitting. ' It was
probably written in the midst of interruptions ( ' the care
of all the churches,' 1128). Moreover, its author was
one whose mind responded with singular quickness to
every gust of passing emotion.
A POCRYPHAL ' LETTERS. -In the Armenian version
after 2 Corinthians there stand two short letters, from
19.Apocryphal the Corinthians to Paul and from Paul
to the Corinthians (cp APOCRYPHA, 9
letters, 294), the 'substance of which is briefly
as follows :-The Corinthians inform Paul that a certain
Simon and Cleobius have come to Corinth teaching that
the prophets are not to be believed, that the world, in-
cluding man, is the work not of God but of angels, that
there is no resurrection of the body, that Christ has not
come in the flesh, and that he was not born of Mary.
Paul replies asserting the orthodox doctrine on each of
these heads.
Attention was first called to these apocrypha by Archbishop
Ussher in 1644. A complete text was published in the Armenian
gc6
 CORMORANT
Bible of Zohrab in 1 8 0 j (incomplete translations earlier); also,
with a mono-raph by Rinck, in 1823. Just as interest in the
subject was geing revived by Theod. Zahn (Gesch. d. Kanons,
1386f: 2 592-611)and Dr. P. Vetter, professor in the Roman
Catholic Faculty at Tubingen, a Latin version was discovered by
M. Samuel Berger in a tenth-century MS. at Milan, and pub-
lished by him in conjnnctioii with Prof. A. Carriere ( L a C o v e -
spodance ApocryPhe de Saint Paul et des Corinihiens, Paris
1891). A second MS. (13th cent.), containing a different bul
probably not altogether independent version, was found a t
Laon, and published by Prof. Bratke in TLZ,1892,col. 5863
There is also extant, in Armenian, a commentary on the epistle
by Ephrem Syrus. The texts are most conveniently collected
by Dr. P. Vetter in a Tiibingen programme (Der apocryplze
dritie Korinihedrief; Vienna, 1894).
’The facts at present ascertained in regard to the
apocryphal letters are these :-
-(I) They were from the first &e. from the 5th cent.) admitted
into the Armenian version as part of the canon. (2) They also
existed in Syriac and were accepted as canonical in the fourth
century by Aphraates, Ephrem Syrus, and the SyriacDidascalk.
[The quotation in Aphraates is recognised by both Harnaclc and
Zahn, though questioned (as we think wrongly) by Carriere and
Vetter.] (3) The letters were also known and had some small
circulation in the West.
The problems which still await solution have reference
to the question of origin.
( I ) Zahn, and now also Vetter think that the greater part of
the letters was in the first instanc; incorporated in the apocryphal
Acts of Paul. [Since this was written Zahn’s hypothesis has
been verified through the discovery, by Dr. C. Schmidt, of con-
siderable portions of the Acts of Paul in Coptic ; cp Nene Heidel-
berger /altrbi2cher, 1897, pp, II~ILL,, and Harnack in TLZ,
1897,col. 627.1 In any case it seems probable that they gained
their place in the Syriacversion in connection with the controversy
against Bardesanes early in the third century. Their composition
can hardly be much later thin zoo A.D. ( 2 ) I t is coming to be
generally agreed that the main body of the epistles existed first
In Greek. Vetter and Zahn now think that the concluding
portion was added in Syriac, and Znhn goes so far as to make
the Latin versions tianslated not from the Greek hut from the
Syriac. In this he certainly has not proved his case ; hut the age
of these versions needs further investigating.
Besides the general commentaries (which still deserve mention)
of Bengel, Wetstein, and Meyer (recent editions by Heinrici),
we have, in English, in The Speaher’s Com-
20. Literature. mentary, that on I Cor. by T. S. Evans
(primarily exegetical and marked hy fine
scholarship) and that on 2 Cnr. by Dr. Joseph Waite (general)
also the cdmkentarieson I Cor. by Dr. T. C. Edwards (exegeticai
and theological), and by Bishop Ellicott (grammatical and exe-
getical). Dean Stanley on both epistles is icturesque and
interesting to the general reader, but has inevitagly fallen behind
the present position of inquiry, and was never exact in scholar-
ship. In this element the later English editions are strongest :
they are most deficient in historical criticism. The fullest recent
commentary in German on the two epistles is by Heinrici (Berlin,
rS8o 1887): well meant and with new illustrations from later
Greik, hut inclined to p i e s Greek analogies too far. Perhaps
the best on the whole is Schmiedel’s in the H C (‘gr), which is
searching and exact but inclined, as we think, to multiply entities
beyond what is necessary. In this respect Jiilicher’s EinL (‘94)
seem to us to be the moit judicious. Godet published a com-
mentary on T Cor. in r8S5 ; and mention should he made of a
monowaph and commentary on 2 Cor. by Klopper (‘69, ‘74),
and 2 the discussions of special points in Krenkel’s Beitriige
(‘go), and of the missing epistle and its identification with parts
of zCor. in the fix)ositor(18976 2 3 1 8 2 8 j 3 , rSg8n113JZ).
On the apocryphal letters, besides the literature quoted above,
a summary will he found in Harnack‘s Gesch. d. altchr. Litt.
137-39, and Zahn’s last words on thesubject in Tkeol. Literatur-
blatt 1894 col. 1 ~ 3 8 The important discussion in Zahn’s
Ein6ifuni 1183-249,was too late for notice. w. s.
CORMORANT. I. T h e cormorant of EV is the
siiZdkh, &j (Lev. 1117 Dt. 1417+),~a word connected
with the common Hebrew verb for ‘ to throw down’
(q-???), and therefore denoting some bird that swoops
or dives after its prey. eBAL in Lev. 1117 rightly
renders K U T U [ ~ ] ~ ~ K as P , denotes a fish-eating bird
T ~this
which dives and remains under water for some time
(Arist. ITA 913). In Dt. 1417 the order of @ is different
from that of the MI‘. Vg. has MerguZus, the little Auk,
and Targ. and Pesh. have rhdl? nzZni-i.e., extrahens
Pisces.’ Many writers, following Bochart, believe >$$
to be SuZu bnssana, the ‘ gannet or ‘ solan goose ‘ ; but,
although this bird is sometimes alleged to have been seen
in the reed-marshes of Lower Egypt (Di. on Lev. 11~ g ) ,
1 n5.1 is restored by Herz in Job28sb: q$$ l?;! ?F;-R’5
‘no cormorant darteth upon it.’ c p L ION, OssrFnAGE.]
907
CORNELIUS
there is some reason for doubting whether it has so wide
an E. range. A more likely bird, in view of its common
occurrence on the coast of Palestine (Tristram, NHB
z p ) , is the ‘ cormorant, ’ which likewise plunges after
its prey.
Two species of cormorant are described from Palestine:
the PhnZanc~-ocornxcarbo, which frequents both the sea-
shore and inland waters, and the pygmy cornlorant, P.
pvg7?zezs, which is found in lakes and rivers. Canon
Tristram states that the P.carbo is always to be seen
near the mouth of the Jordan, watching for the fish,
which seem on entering the Dead Sea to be stupefied by
the saltness of its waters. Cormorants are fish-eaters
and extremely voracious. Like the bittern and the
pelican they are looked upon as ,inhabitants of solitary
places.
2. For npq (so Ba. ; Gi. ne?, &a’ ath; Is. 34 II Zeph. 2 14,
AV text), see PELICAN (so AVmg., AV elsewhere, RV every-
where).
- N: M.- A. E. S.
CORN. On the cultivation of corn and its use as
food, see A GRICULTURE , B READ , FOOD, I , and the
various cereals (on which see PALESTINE, J 14). On
other points, see the articles cited in the references
given in the following list of expressions :-
I. 2’?N, ibhibh, the fresh young ears of corn, Lev. 2 14(‘green
ears of corn,’ RV ‘corn in the ear’) ; see also MONTH.
2. b’‘??, beZiZ, Job 2 4 6 AV (mg. ‘mingled corn or dredge’),
properly ‘fodder’: see CATTLE, 5 5.
3. l?, bar, Gen. 41 35 49,etc. (E),Am. 5 I I R 6 perhaps ‘purified
[cleansed] grain ’ ; cp Ar. luwarz, ‘wheat, grain of wheat,’ and
see FOOD,I.
4. 714, garen (’?l:-j?, Is.21 TO, EV ‘corn of my floor’; cp
5.b’i,
Dt. 1 6 I AV), properly ‘threshing-floor’; see A G R I C V L T$~8.I ~ ,
cp 21. 16.
g-wii, Lev. 2 14 ‘corn beaten out,’ RV ‘bruised corn’ ;
6. ]I!, d<ig-in, Gen. 27 28 37, etc., grain (of cereals), usedwidely,
along with ~~~~~ ‘ must’ (see WINE), of the products of Canaan
(Dt. 33 zC); see FOOD, I I. Its connection with the god DAGON
Lq.v.1 is uncertain.
7. $?l?, kanne2, z I<. 44z,EV ‘ears of corn’ (cp Lev. 23 14
‘ears’), preferably ‘fruit ’ or garden-growth’ ; cp CARMEL.
See FOOD, s I.
8. 112Y,‘ZbhzZr, Josh. 5115, EV ‘old corn,’ RVmg. ‘produce,
corn.’
9. ?ply, ‘Zrzmih, Ruth 8 7,EV ‘heap of corn ’ ; see AGRI-
C U L T U R E , 8 gf.
IO. ?!j?, &aria, I S.1717,etc., ‘parched corn’ ; see FOOD, $ I.
IT. ?Q?,~ a m i AJudg. , 155, etc., ‘standing corn’; see AGRI-
CULTURE, $7.
niT1, riph8tlz, 2 S. 17 19 Prov. 2722, ‘bruised corn’; cp.
12.
COOKING, 8 2.
13. l$,,&!ber, Gen. 42 I , etc., perhaps ‘broken (corn),’ but
uncertmn. As a denom. y2dn, ‘to sell corn’ (Gen. 426 Am.
8 5 3 etc.).
14.’K ~ K K O F ,Jn. 12 24, ‘a corn (RV grain).’
15. &os, Mk. 4 2 8 etc., a general term like: :1 (above, 6).
16. ~d m~6prba,cornfields, Mt. 1 2 I Mk. 2 23.
17. LTT&,~XUE, Mt. 12 I Mk. 223, ‘ear ofcorn’; cp Heb. n$kW, Job
24 24.
CORNELIUS (KOPNHAIOC [Ti. WH]), one of the
centurions of the so-called Italian cohort (Actsl01).
I n the reguIar army composed of Roman citizens dis-
tinctive names of this sort were not given to the separate
1. The
cohorts ; only the legions were so designated
‘Italian, (Ramsay, St. chap. 14, 0 I, p. 314).
In ActslO, accordingly, what we have to
Cohort. do with is a cohort of the auxiliary troops
which were raised in the provinces and not formed into
legions.1 As for the meaning of such names : ‘ cohors
Gallorum Macedonica,’ for example, would denote
1 Legions were stationed only in the great provinces that
were governed by the emperor through a lcgntus A u p s t i p r o
firetore; the smaller provinces-those administered by an officer
of lower rank (procurator), such as Egypt, or Judaea from 6-4r
A.D., and again from 44A.D. onwards-had only auxiliary troops.
The old provinces, where war n o longer threatened and the
administration was in the hands of the senate, had no standing
army properly so called.
908.
 CORNELIUS
that the cohort mentioned consisted of Gauls but had
distinguished itself in Macedonia. If this interpretation
were applicable, a n Italian cohort would mean one
which had fought in Italy. I n Arrian, however (Acies
contra AZanos, 0 3,-p. 99), the cohort which in § 13, p.
102, is called 3 mreipa + 'ITuXLK?~, the Italian cohort,
figures siniply as oi'I~ahoi, the Italians, and with this
agree all the other mentions (entirely in inscriptions) of
a cohors Italics.
These are (I) Coh(ors) 1 Itnlica civium Ronzanomnz v o b i z -
fnriorzint ; ( 2 ) coh(ors) mil<iariati.e., having 1000instead of
as usual 500 men) ltaZic(a) volunt(ariorum) p z m cst fit Syria;
(3) mlr. 11. Italica; (4) the epitaph of a subordinate officer
found at Carnuntum in Pannonia and first published in the
ArchreoL-ejigr. Milthefl7~n,renaas Oesteweiclr- U n z a m (1895,
p. z18)-0jtio coh(ortis) II Itn/ic(z) c(ivium) R(omanorum
centuria) F(aus)tini e x wemZ(1ariis) sagit(tariis) exer(citns)
Syriaci.
Thus the um?ppa 'ITuXLK.;)of ActslOr really consisted
of Italians, probably of Italian volunteers.
Now, Schiirer-1 has pointed out that according to
Josephus (Ant. xx. 87, 176) the garrison of Ccesarea
about 60 A.D. consisted mostly of Czesareans and
Sebasteni (Sebaste having, from 27 B.C., been the
name of Saniaria). As early, however, as 41-44 A.D.
(at latest), when Czesarea was not under a Roman
procurator but under a grandson of Herod the Great,
King Herod Agrippa I. (whose death is recorded in
Acts1220-23, and during whose reign, or shortly before
it, the story of Cornelius will have to be placed), the
garrison a t Caesarea must, according to Schiirer, have
been siniilarly composed. For in 44 A . D ., the emperor
Claudius desired to transfer the garrison-which, at that
time, and according to Josephus (B/ iii. 42, 66) also
twenty-three years later, in 67 A. D., consisted of an nZn
(=Gb--i.e., cavalry detachment of 500 men) of the
Czzsareans and Sebasteni and five cohorts- to the
province of Pontus, because, after the death of his
friend King Agrippa I., they had publicly insulted the
statues of his daughters ; but there was no change of
garrison until the time of Vespasian (Jos. Ant. xix. 9 ~f., to be instructed on the matter by a divine .revelation.
§§ 356-366). This led Schiirer to conjecture that a
cohort of Italians may have come to Czzsarea (there
was in Syria, as shown above, one such at least) under
Vespasian, and that the author of Acts, or of the source
from which he drew, may have transferred the circum-
stances of his own time to the time of Peter.
Ranisay, on the other side adduces the iourth o i the inscrip-
tions given above. This ihscription, however, does not say
more than that in 69 A.D. there was a cohors Itnlica in Syria;
and, although there may have heen such a cohort there as early
as about 40-45 A.D., it is not said that there was one in Czesarea.
I t is especially improbable that that city was so garrisoned in
the reign of Agrippa I. (41.44 A.D.), for he was a relatively
independent sovereign, not likely to have had Italians in his
service; hut even for the period preceding 41 A.D. Schiirer
argues for a prohability that the garrison of Caesarea was the
same as it was afterwards and that it was simply taken over by
cessio;. For the rest, Ramsay can only
ty that Cornelius may have been teniporarily
a t Czsarea on some 'detached service.
Oscar Holtzmann (NTZiche Zeitpesch. § 11, 2, p.
108) thinks that perhaps the enrolment a t some time or
other of a considerable number of Italian volunteers
may have sufficed to secure for such a cohort in
perpetuity the honorary epithet of ' Italics.' All this,
however, is mere conjccture.
Mommsen (Sitzunys6er. d. Ahad. zu BerZiz, 1895,
pp. 501-3) seeks to deprive of its force the statement of
Josephus on which Schiirer relies. Starting from the
view that the troops of Agrippa must certainly have been
drawn from the whole of his kingdom,-that is, from
all Palestine-he maintains that Czesarea and Sebaste
are singled out for special mention by Josephus merely
as being the two chief towns in Agrippa's dominions.
H e lays emphasis on the fact that in DJiii. 42, Q 66
1 Z W T ,7875, pp. 413.425; GJVl382-6 (ET i. 248-54; where,
on p. 54, according to Ex$. 1896, ii. 470n. for 'in reference to a
hater period' should be read 'in reference to a precediiy
period'). In Ex#. 1896, 2469-472, SchLirer replies to liamsay
i6. rg+201 ; Ramsay replies, 7897, 169-72.
% 909
CORNELIUS
(see above) and Ant. xx. 61, 122, it is said only of
the ah-not of .the cohors-that it was composed of
Ccesareans and Sebastenes. At the saine time he does
not use this fact to establish the probability of a cohors
ZtaZica in Czesarea. On the contrary, his conclusion is
that ' W e are unable to identify with .any certainty
either the cohors Azgusta of Acts 27 I or the umipa
' I T u X L K ?of~ Actsl01.'
The special importance of Cornelius in Acts lies in
the representation that his conversion by Peter brought
2. Narrative the originzl Christian community of
irreconcilable Jerusalem, in spite of violent recalci-
with council of tfance a t first (llaf: ), to the convic-
tion that the Gentiles also, without
Jerusalem. circunicision and without coming under
any obligation to observe the law of Moses, were to be
received into the Christian Church if they had faith in
Christ (1117f.). The historical truth of this representa-
tion has to be considered,in connection with what we are
told elsewhere concerning the Council of Jerusalem (see
C OUNCIL , ii. 4 ; ACTS, 8 4). That council could never
have been necessary, and the Judaising Christians in it
could never have stood out for the circumcision of the
Gentiles or their obligation to obscrve the whole Mosaic
law (Acts151 5 ) , if they had already come to see and
acknowledge in the case of Cornelius that such demands
wcre contrary to the divine will. In his controversy
with Peter at Antioch also (Gal. 211-ZI), Paul could
have used no mol-e effective weapon than a simple
reference to this event ; but he betrays no knowledge of
it. No one, it is to be presumed, will attempt to save
the credibility of the narrative by the expcdient of
transferring it to some date subseqocnt to the Coiincil
of Jerusalem. As at that council (we are told) Peter
himself expressly agreed that the Gentiles should have
unimpeded entrance into the Christian Church, that
circumcision and observance of the law should not be
demanded of them, he did not, at a later date, require
Had the Cornelius incident becn latcr than the Council
the novelty would have lain simply in Peter's preaching
the gospel and administering baptism to Cornelius and
his household in puop'in persona. This, however, is
precisely what would have been contrary to the principle
adopted at the Council as laid down in Gal. 29, which
settled that he should confine his missionary activity to
born Jews. (On the importance of this principle, see
C OUNCIL, I 9. )
As the story of Cornelius must thus be retained, if
anywhere, in i t s present .place, . before the Council of
3. Credibility Jerusalem, its credibi1:ty can be allowed
of narrative only on condition that it is acknow-
a9 an incident. ledged not to possess the important
-~
bearing on questions of principle which
is claimed for it in Acts. 111-18.
( a ) T o meet this requirement, it is usually thought
sufficient to say that the occurrence was an ' exceptional
case ' (so, for example, Ranisay also, St. Paud4), chap.
3, p. 44). This may be true in the sense that Peter con-
verted and baptized no more Gentiles ; but, unless a c t h e
same time it is denied that in the case of Cornelius Peter's
action proceeded on a divine revelation and command, the
reference to the exceptional character of the case has no
force. The conditions of missionary activity which God
had revealed to Peter in the case of Cornelius niust
surely, when Paul also began to apply them, have been
acknowledged by the original Church; and thus the
controversy resulting in the Council of Jcrusalem could
never have arisen. On this ground alone, then, to
begin with, Peter's vision at Joppa is unhistorical ; and
aversion from miracles has nothing lo do with its
rejection. The whole account seems to be influenced
by reminiscences of the story of the summoning of
Balaam by Balalr (Nu. 225-39) ; see I<renlcel, Yosephus
U. LILCaS, 193-9 r94].
(6) I t is further urged (so again Ramsay, St. PauA4J,
910
 CORNELIUS
ch. 3 Q I and 16 Q 3 , pp. 42J and 375, and Exp., 1896,
22mf:) that Cornelius according to Acts102 22 35 was a
semi-proselyte-Le.,gave a general adhesion to Judaism,
without being circumcised or yielding definite obedience
to the details of the Mosaic Law; l-but neither does this
contention avail. The fact is, as stated in Acts1028 113,
that Cornelius and his house, according to Jewish and
Jewish-Christian ideas, were unclean ; and if, notwith-
standing this, God had commanded his admission within
the pale of the Christian Church, the command had
essentially no less significance than it would have had if
he had previously been quite unattached to Judaism.
Ramsay (43) says, it is true, that Peter ‘ laid it down as
a condition of reception into the Church that the non-
Jew must approach by way of the synagogue (1035)
and become ‘‘ one that fears God.” ’ But Peter does
not say this until after he has been taught by God in a
vision. Without this instruction it would have been
incumbent on him to exact, as conditions precedent,
acceptance of circumcision and submission to the entire
law (1014). As soon as the divine command is re-
cognised as a historical fact the dispute at the Council of
Terusalem becomes, as already stated, an impossibility.
(6) On one assumption alone, then, will it be possible
to recognise a kernel of historical truth in the story of
Cornelius : the assumption, namely, that he was a full
proselyte,-circumcised, that is tc say, and pledged to
observance of the entire Law. Such a supposition,
however, is in direct contradiction of the text (10 28 113).
It would be strange indeed if, in order to make the
narrative credible, one had first to change it in so
important a point. I t would be necessary to depart
still further from the text if it were desired to put faith
in what is said in the pseudo-Clenientinc Homilies
(2O,13), according to which Peter did not convert Cor-
nelius at Caesarea to Christianity at all, but merely
freed him froin a demon’s possession. I t is not in-
trinsically impossible that here we have a fragment of
good tradition preserved from some ancient source (see
SIMON M A G U S ) ; but, on account of its combination
with manifest fancies (see below, Q 6 ) , to trust it would
be unsafe.
All the more urgent becomes the question whether
the narrative in Acts is derived from a written source.
4. Sources. Of the scholars enumerated under Acts
( Q 11)the majority assume that it is, and
point out verses in ch. 1 0 , the proper connections of
which (they say) have been obliterated by the final
redactor of the book.2 They further emphasise the
point that in the narrative by Peter (115-17) certain
details are not given precisely as in ch. 10. Still, even
the most serious of these differences-namely, that in
1 That this is the meaning of the phrase uc@5pwos [or
$opoljpwosI rbv B&v is shpwn in Schiirer G/V, ET 4 3 1 1 8 ; alsq
S B A W 1897 Heft 13 Die Juden im bosporanischen Reich,
es ecialiy ig;f=zrSf: ’of the volume: see also P.ROSELYTE.
1036f:, however, ought not to be reckoned among these:
no redactor would have introduced such violent abnormalities
into his text. The words from cip&ip~vos(‘beginning’) down to
rahchaiar (‘ Galilee’), or, it may be, to ’Iodvxqs (end of v. 37)
are absolutely foreign to the Construction, and certainly ough;
to come between i;s (‘who’) and S~rjhBsv(EV ‘went about’)
in v. 38, whether it be that they originally belonged to this
place, or that they originally stood on the margin as a
reminiscence by a very early reader from Lk.23 5 or Acts 1 22.
In 1036 the reading of WH (‘[He] sent the word unto ...
Lord of all. Y e know the word which’: cp K V w . ) 4 un-
questionably a copyist’s attempt to remove the difficulties of
the construction; hut their marginal reading ( T ~ V hiyov 6v
d&ursrheu, etc.; ‘The word which’ as in EV) it is as difficult
to make dependent on the oxlare (ye know) of v. 37 as it is to
construe in apposition to the whole sentence in v. 35. If we
refuse to suppose that hefore v. 36 some such words as ‘you
also hath he thought worthy to hear’ have fallen out before
~ b vhdyov bv hrQumChev,etc. (the word which [he] sent), it will
be necessary to take rbv h6yov 8v (‘the word which’) down to
S d ’IvuoJ X p ~ u ~ o(‘by i ) Jesus Christ ’), as a marginal explanation
of r b y e v 6 p e ~ o v ‘<pa KafS i;hys r<s IouSalar (‘the word which
was throughout afl Judrea’), where ‘+a(RV ‘saying’) is wrongly
understood in the sense of ‘worcf’ instead of the Hebraising
sense of ‘event, occurrence’ as in Lk. 215: and 03~6sZ a ~ v
navrov &pias (‘he is lord of all’) will be R further addition.
911
CORNELIUS
ch. 11 the Holy Spirit fell upon Cornelius and his
household at the very beginning of Peter’s discourse
(v. rg)-adrnits of explanation: 1034-43 may have
been supposed to represent only a comparatively small
part of what Peter meant to say. Were it necessary
to make a choice between ch. 10 and ch. 11, it would
be the worst possible course to try to see in the latter
the source from which the fuller narrative of ch. 10 was
originally derived by amplification (so Wendt, ZTK,
1891, pp. 230-254, esp. 250-4). That principle-deter-
mining character which, as we have seen, can in no
case have attached to the assumed event, is imparted
precisely by the justification which in ch. 11 the event
receives before the church of Jerusalem ; and against
this it is of no avail that Wendt chooses to attribute
some of the strongest passages, such as 11I and 1118,
to the latest redactor of Acts.
More important than any of the indications hitherto
dealt with is the clue supplied in 1044.47 1115, 17. The
1 speaking with tongues’ of Cornelius and his house-
hold is here placed on a level with that of the apostles
at the first Pentecost after the resurrection, but is not
yet (as it is in the other passage) described as a speaking
in the languages of foreign nations : it is undoubtedly
meant, as in I Cor. 12 14, to be taken simply as a
speaking in ecstatic tones (see GIFTS). Certainly this
representation of the matter does not seem as if it had
been due to the latest redactor of the book as a whole.
In favour of the credibility of the narrative, however,
nothing is gained by all this search for a written source.
I t is a great error, widely diffused, to suppose that one
may ipsn facto take as historical everything that can
be shown to have stood in one of the written sources
of the N T authors. As far as the source was in
substance identical with what we now have in the
canonical Acts, it is equally exposed to the criticisms
already offered. There is one assumption which would
escape the force of that criticism-the assumption,
namely, that Cornelius was a full proselyte (Q 3 c ) ;-
but it cannot possibly by any analysis of sources be
made out to have been the original tradition.
All the more remarkable is the clearness with which
the tendency of the narrative\may be seen. The
initiative in missions- to the Gentiles,
5. which historically belongs to Paul, is
here set down to the credit of Peter (see ACTS, Q 3 f: ).
According to the representation given in Acts, it was
preceded by the conversion of the Samaritans (85-25),
who, however, were akin to the Jews, and consequently
not Gentiles (Schiirer, G J Y 2 5 - 7 , E T 3 5 - 7 ) . I t had been
preceded also by the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch
( 8 26-39) ; but lie had not thereby been made a member
of any Christian church. T h e really difficult problem
was this : In what manner ought Jewish Christians to
live together in one and the same church with Gentile
Christians, who did not hold by the Mosaic Law? This
question is brought by Peter, in the case of Cornelius,
on the basis of a divine revelation, exactly to the
solution which in reality it was left to Paul to achieve
after hard battle at a much later date (see C OUNCIL ,
$5 4, 7). With a’certain reserve, which bears witness
to right feeling for essential historical truth in spite of
all unhistoricity in the narrative, the author attributes
no more conversions of Gentiles to Peter ; and even the
conversion of Cornelius himself is in some measure toned
down by the previous Jewish sympathies with which he
is credited. There is thus a further step left. I t is
not till later, in Antioch, that the gospel is preached
to Gentiles who had not previously stood in any close
connection with Judaism, and the new step is taken
(as in the case of the Samaritans) in the first instance
by subordinate persons, and not sanctioned by the
authorities at Jerusalem till after the event ( 1 119-24).
None the less are mission to the Gentiles and the
abolition of the distinction between Jewish Christians
and Gentile Christians so essentially vindicated in the
912
 CORNER
case of Cornelius that Peter has necessarily to be con-
sidered their real initiator as far as Acts is concerned.
T h e narrative, accordingly, is incomplete contrast to Gal.
211-21. In Galatians the historical Peter, on account
of Jewish Christian prejudice not yet fully-overcome,
withdraws from table-fellowship which he had begnn
with Gentile Christians, and tkereby exposes himself
to the sharp censure of Paul (see C OUNCIL , 5 3 ) ; in
Acts he has completely overcome those prejudices long
before Paul begins his Christian activity. I t is not
necessary on this account to suppose that the author
of Acts freely invented the whole story, including even
the name of Cornelius ; but, considering how niarkcdly
he brings it into the service of his theory, we have little
prospect of ultimately being able to retain more than
a very small kernel as historical.
According to the pseudo-Clementine Homilies (20 13 ;
see above, § 3 c) and Recognitions (1055) Cornelius took
6. Later the side of Peter as against Paul. When
haditions. Simon the Sorcerer (i.e . , Paul ; see S IMON
M AGUS ) had stirred up all Antioch against
Peter, Cornelius comes upon a mission from the Em-
peror and arrives at an understanding with the friends
of Peter, at their request, to set abroad the ruinour
that his imperial commission has reference to the arrest
of Simon. Thereupon Simon makes his escape to
Judzea. Thus Cornelius here plays the part which in
Acts 2133 2323-33 is assigned to Claudius Lysias.
According to the ‘6rr6pvqpa on the Holy Apostles Peter and
Paul,’ attributed to Symeon Metaphrantes, Cornelius I S conse-
crated by Peter bishop of Ilium; according to the Greek
Menrea (13th Sept.), he is sent by Peter to Skepsis on the
Hellespont (Lipsius, Apokryplz. Ap.-Gesch. ii. 147 and g j ) .
According to the pseudo-Clementine Homilies (3 63->2)and Re-
cognitions (3 6 5 3 ) , Zacchaeus was consecrated first bishop of
Czsarea by Peter ; in &4j. Corzst. vii. 46 I Zacchaeus is succeeded
by Cornelius. P. w. s.
CORNER (Z@5), Lev.19927 215: ( I ) of a field: cp
C LEAN , 3 6 ; (2)of the beard : see C UTTINGS OF THE
FLESH, § 5 , M OURNING C USTOMS ; ( 3 ) of a garment
(qn,~ p & c n c A o ~ Nu. ) , 1538 RV”g. : see FRINGES.
CORNER, ASCENT OF THE (?I?@;! Neh. nbg),
3 31 RV. See J ERUSALEM .
CORNER GATE (P’?g)i! 7g@), Zech.1410. See
J ERUSALEM .
CORNER-STONE (in Job Z$$ py; hleoc
rwNlAlOC; in IF. n?e, A. h K P O r W N l A l O C , and SO in
N T ; in Ps. n9!l K E K ~ ~ ~ W T T I C M E N; AAq.I BTTI-
r W N l b , Sym. r C d N l A l ? ) , (a) JOb386; (6) Is.2816
I Pet. 2 6 Eph. 220 (without hleoc) ; (c) Ps. 14412.
In (a) the phrase ‘pinnah-stone,’ EV’s ‘ corner-stone,’ is
parallel to p’;??, ‘its foundations’ (or bases), just as in Jer.
5126 ‘a Stone for apinnah’(n3Di )X) is parallel to ‘ a stone
forfoundations’ (nil& ]aF).T’In (h) we find the same con-
nection between a?:, p i r y h , and the foundation - stone.
Clearly, therefore, the traditional rendering ‘corner-stone for
1 2 is
~ unsuitable. Indeed, the word ; I
:? elsewhere only in
some cases means corner’ (nee Ex.27 2 4 Ezek. 43 20 45 19
Johl 19 Prov. 7 8). Besides this, the architectural term Ififii
a
?: in Ps. 118 22 (A. brpoywvra?~~ in I Pet. 2 6 cp Eph. 2 20; but
not in Mt.2142 and parallel passages Acts411 pet. 27) evi-
dently means, not ‘corner-stone,’ but “topstone of the battle-
ment,’ and ‘battlement’is RV’s rendering of ”! in z Ch.2615
Zeph. 116 36.
In spite of tradition, therefore, it would seem that
?a; 121 means, not a corner-stone, but a principal stone
(cp n’??, Ass. p d n u , ‘front’), one selected for its
solidity and beauty to fill an important place in a build-
ing, whether in the foundation or in the battlement.
Hence the metaphorical sense of n;?, ‘ principal men,‘
Is. 1913 (so point), I S. 1438 Judg. 20 2. (c) The third
E V passage (Ps.14412) with the word ‘corner’ is ex-
tremely obscure in MT. That Jewish maidens could
be likened either to ‘corner-stones’ (EV, Del.) or to
‘ corner-pillars ’ (Baethg., We. in SBOT, comparing the
9’3
COSAM
h y a t i d e s ) puts a severe strain on the imagination.
The student may consult the three critics named.
!ech. 9 15 ( ’ corners of the altar ’ ) by no means justifies
lither of the above interpretations of n”:. The parallel
)assage, Ps. 1283, indicates the sort of figure required ;
lie text needs emendation. See further Che. Ps.12)
In Is. 2816 the stone described as a pinnnh-stone
ymbolises, not the theocracy or the Davidic dynasty,
lor yet the (Jewish) Messiah, but the revealed relation or
r‘ahwb to Israel, which Yahwk was establishing ever
nore and more by the words of his prophets and the
,olemn acts of his regal sway. That it should be
zpplied to their divine Messiah by Christians is intelli-
$le ; and, since they read the Psalter as a book with a
iving power of self-adaptation to their own changing
ieeds, it was natur$ that Christian disciples should find
.he words of Ps. l T Q z z , which originally referred to the
lewish people, verified in their Master. In Eph. 220
here is no absolute need to interpret d q m y w r d o u other-
,vise than 1 3 ;~ but in I Pet. 2 6 we seein to require
.he traditional sense ‘ corner-stone ’ (see v. 7).
CORNET. For Dan. 3 5 3 (p?)and I Ch. 1528, etc.
:l$i)see MUSIC, I 5a. For 2 S. (is1(PPpg), see Music,
i 3 (3).
CORONATION. A4NOINTIXG[q. w . , 0 31 was by itself
tn efficient mode of investiture with royal functions ( I S.
10 I I K. 1 3 4 ) . l It is only in the case of Joash that
:oronation is mentioned as accompanying-indeed, it is
mentioned as preceding-the anointing (2 K. 1 1 12).
Perhaps z S. 1 IO refers to an older custom of trans-
[erring to the successor the personal adornments of the
dead king; see C ROWN . Perhaps too the anointing
occurred near or on a particular nza@nh or upright
stone, as in the case of Abimelech, for we can hardly
douht that EV’srendering the ‘ pillar that was in Shechem’
(Judg. 96) is correct, though the final letter of nxio3 has
been lost or removed (see Moore, adZoc.). Joash too is
said to have stood ‘by the pillar as the manner was ‘ ( 2K.
1114) ; but here the word for ‘ pillar’ is different (imy),
and we should perhaps follow RVmg. and Klostermann
in rendering ‘ platform ’ (cp 2 I<. 233 RVmg.).2
After the anointing the people greeted the new king
with a flourish of trumpets ( I K. 13439 2 I<. 9 13 i ~ w ypn, x
2 I<. 1114 niiYsn2). I n the case of Jehu and Absaloiii
( z S. 1510) the trumpet sounds were the signal of
accession, though they may have been simply an element
in the popular expressions of joy ( I S. 11 15 I K. 140).
which included hand-clapping ( 1yzc, ~ 2x3 2 K. 1112 Ps.
T .
47 I [z]) and the exclamation ‘ Live the king ’ (~$91 v; ;
I S. 1024 z S. 16 16 I K. 1 3 4 39 2 I<. 1112). Sometimes
there was a procession with music ; the new king rode
on the royal mule ( I K. 1 3 3 38) and finally took his
seat on the throne.
I t is possible that ‘ to-day’ in Ps. 27 refers not to the birth
but to the coronation of the king. See Baethg., Che. ad loc. The
latter illustrates from the sculptures representing the coronation
of the Egyptian queen Hat-shepsut,3 Naville, Tm#e ofDairaZ-
Bnhnn’ 111 1899, pp. 1-9). See Weinel’s essay on nwp in
Z A 2 - l ~181:)gz [‘98] and Diehl, BrhZ. vorz Ps.xlvii., Giessen,
1894. I. A.
CORRUPTION, MOUNT OF (n*n@png), K.
2313, RVmg. ‘mount of destruction.’ See D ESTRUC -
T I O N , MOUNT OF.
COS ( KWC [AKV]), I Macc. 15 23. See COOS.
COSAM ( K W C ~ M[Ti. WII]),fifth from Zerubbabel
in the genealogy of Joseph (Lk. 3 28). See G ENEA -
LOGIES, ii., 3 3.
1 According to Rabbinic views, not all kings were anointed ;
but the term ;I)?* n’wa seems the generic designation of a king.
On the association of crowning with anointing see Is. 61 3 (cp
S B O T n d Zoc.).
2 L. Oliphant ( H a ; f , 147) conjectures that the (artificial)
footprints in the rocks in different parts of Pdestine (#.E., at
Hehron and at the Neby Shaib near Hattin) indicate very
ancient coronation-stones.
3 Hat-Sepsnt, formerly wrongly written Hatasu (see EGYPT,
B 53).
914
 COSTUS
COSTUS (?ti! ; iplc [BAFL] ; casia), ,EX. 30 24
RVmS [in Ezek. 2719 Vg. stacte, EV CAssrA @ KAI
TPOXIAC ‘ and drugs? ’1. See C A SS I A , I NCENSE , § 6.
COTTAGE. I. For Is. 18(32D)and 2420 (7ph)see HUT.
2. In Zeph.26 (EV ‘cottages’ RVma. ‘caves’) the &r. h q .
nip is probably a dittograph of ili? ‘ dwellings’(Bohme, Z A TW
7212 : Rothstein in Kau. FfS; and Schwally, Z A T W
10 186 [‘go]),under the influence of O ‘ n l p in D. 5 ; or, transposing
the two words we may adopt with We. the reading of B E u m L
ICpdrq v o p j , d t h the meaning ‘Philistia shall become dwellings
for,’ etc.
COTTON1 o r Fine Cloth (RVrng.), or G REEN
(hangings), E V (DgT2, kanrpas; K A P ~ A C I N A
[BS”AL@] : Esth. 16t). T h e Heb. word, which
appears also in Arab., Arm., Gr., and Lat., is derived
from Pers. Kirpds and ultimately frorii Sans. Kar$risa, ‘the
cotton plant.’ As a derived word it means, in the
various languages, primarily ‘ muslin,’ the fine cotton
cloth which came from India, and also such stuffs as are
named ‘calico.’ The nature and home of the cotton
plant were known to the Greeks as early as Herodotus
( 3 106) ; but it was the expedition of Alexander that first
mide them familiar with the use of cotton fabrics.
T h e earliest known occurrence of i c d p ~ a u o=car6asus r
in Greek or Latin is in a line of Cscilius (219-
166? R. C. )-‘ carbasina, molochina, anipelina ’-which
appears to be a transliteration of a line in a Greek
play. Strabo (151,$ 71) and the author of the Pem$l.
Mavis Enryth?: (chap. 11), Lucan ( 3 q g ) , and Quintus
Curtius (89, § 21)used the word in special connection
with India ; but other references in classical writers
show that the word obtained a wider sense, particularly
in the poets. Thus it is used of fine Spanish 1 nen or
cambric (Pliny19 I , § z), of the awnings of theatres3
(Lucr. 6 IO^), often of sails ( A n .3 357 4 417, etc. ) and of
robes of fine material (i6. 8 34 11776, etc. : see these
and other passages discussed in Yates, Textrinum
Antiquorum, 13388 ). W e cannot, therefore, be certain
as to the material called karpas in the particular case of
Esth. 1 6 , since according to the later usage any light
material might be so called; but in view of the un-
doubted meaning of the original word in Sans., the
presumption is in favour of cotton-muslin. Karpas
certainly denotes a material, not a colour (the latter
is a Jewish idea, found in Vg.).
Asiatic cotton in ancient times (like most modern cotton) was
derived from the cotton p r a d Gossypiunz /ierJaremn L.-
.perennial in the tropics, hut dewhere annual-which Lad its
first home in India, but by the time of Alexander had spread to
Bactriana (De Candolle, Origiza, 3238). The cotton shrz66
(Gossyjiunz arJoreum L.) on the other hand, which, though
little known to the andents’ is described in one pl,ace by Pliny,4
had its first home, accordink tomodern investigatlon, in ‘Upper
Guinea, Abyssinia, Sennlr, and Higher Egypt’ (2.325 $).
This, brought down from the Soudsn was probably the earliest
cotton cultivated in Lower Egypt. ’Prosper Alpinus saw it in
Egypt in the sixteenth century (i6., 327). It was afterwards
displaced by the Indian G. her6aceum.
For Gen. 41 42 Ex. 25 4, R V w . @W, LZ ; EV F INE LINEN,
AVw. SILK [cp Pr. 3122, AV]), see LINEN (7); for Is. 19gt
RVm. (>iin,/tarui),see LINEN (3). N. ai.-w. T. T. -D.
COUCH (”p), Amos. 3 12. See BED, 0 2.
COULTER (nK
; C K ~ Y O C [BAL]), I S . 1320 3,
elsewhere rendered ‘ plowshare’ ( APOTPON [BAQ]),
Is. 2 4 Joel 310 IO] Mic. 43. See A GRICULTURE , p 3.
COUNCIL.
I. D?”f, n&nzrit/idm, Ps. 68 27 [&I (EVmg. their com-
1 According to I<lostermann’s conjectural emendation of
IS. 2 19 ( n i n ~or for ln?), the word ‘cotton’ is itself a
Hebrew word, though it has come to us through the ArabjC
p@n, cp TUNIC), and apparently it meant ‘linen’ not ‘cotton ;
l Kahs;ral, hiwsav 82 r o h o uvpaivsc. x&v
xeeop&v? [ m n ~ pBv
d r b hivov &is Kaho+v, Jos. Ant. iii. 72. Cp LI,NEN.
The adjectival form kcirjcisa means ‘cotton stuff.
3 These may possibly have been of calico.
4 xix. 1z ; ‘superior pars &gypti in Arabiam vergens gignit
frnticem quem aliqui gossypion vocant, plures xylon et ideo
lina inde facta xylina.’ Cp Oliver, FZ. Tm$. Africa, 1211.
915
COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM
any‘: prop. ‘heap of stones’; BBRc.aR i y e p 6 v ~ ra&Ov) is
irely corrupt., Che., Z A TbV 19 1-6 [‘gg] reads myon[nl, ‘the
lameless ones. See also Hupf., Baethg.
2. np!+, mi3maCath,z S. 23 23 4.04 [BAI, +uhak< tLl)=
Ch. 1125 (warp& [BRAL] EVmg. EV guard ’), the hody-
nard of David, at the head of wkcb was BENAIAH( I ) ; cp
S. 22 14 (RV ‘ council,’ AV ‘ Lidding,’ a p , p v ... ~apayylhh-
.QTOS [DALl)and see Dr. ad Zoc.1
3. TiD, sad (doubtless to be connected with Syr. sewcidci ‘talk,’
stawwad ‘ to speak’ ; cp Hommel, ZDMG 46 529, who similarly
xplains the Sab. 71Dn as ‘speaker, or place of oracle ’) is used,
tot only of a council or meeting (cp Jer. 6 I T 15 17 Ezek. 139,
tc. ; see ASSEMBLY [+I), but also of its deliheratiqns and their
esult (‘secret,’ ‘counsel’; Am.37 Pr.1113 Ps.833[41, etc.;
p esp. Ps. 55 14 [IS]).
4. uuppodh~ovin Acts 25 12 is the jnry or hoard of assessors
vho aided the procurators and governors of a province ; cp Jos.
Sjii. 1 G I .
5. uuvW LO” the supreme council, Mt. 5 22 Jn. 11 47 Acts 5 21
:tc. wuv&a’inpl. (Mt. 10 r7=Mk. 139) are the smaller local
rihuuals; cp KPLULS (EV ‘judgement’) Mt.5213, and see
;OVERNMENT, $31 end ; cp SYNEDRIUM.
COUNCIL O F JERUSALEM. This council, if not
he most important occurrence of the apostolic age, is
he one that bears the most official character. The
nore contradictory the accounts of it which we seem to
)assess in Gal. 2 and Actsl5, the more necessary is it
.o adopt a careful method for its investigation. T h e
irst question that arises is whether both accounts really
.elate to the same occurrence. I n order to answer this,
t is needful to determine the times of Paul’s journeys
o Jerusalem after his conversion.
In Gal. 118 21 he protests, very solemnly ( l z o ) , that he
k i t e d Jerusalem for the first time three years after his
1. Paul’s Journeys conversion, and for the second
time fourteen years after his first
to Jerusalem in visit (or, less probably, after his
Gal. and Acts. conversion). Unless we deny the
:eminmess of the epistle to the Galatians we cannot
m t give unqualified acceptance to this statement.
Paul was endeavouring to show how little he was dependent
n his apostleship upon the original apostles. He was, therefore,
,onnd in the interests of truth to mention all the occasions on
which he had come into contact with them. Moreover, to pass
>ver any such occasion would have been highly imprudent ; for
lis opponents naturally were aware of all of them and would
lave promptly exposed the falsehood to the Galariais.
Now, the journey mentioned in Acts926 must un-
iesitatingly be identified with that in Gal. 118, even
.hough the narrative of Acts contains not the smallest
lint that it was not made until three years after Paul’s
:onversion, and had been preceded by a sojourn in
4rabia and a second sojourn in Damascus.
a. It would seem, then, that the second journey re-
:orded in Galatians (21) must coincide with the one
in Acts1130, which, according to Actsl225, did extend
to Jerusalem.
The famine during the reign ofClauditis (by which the journey
was occasioned) occurred in Palestine 2 before 48, at the earliest in
a+e., as the narrative of Acts appears to imply(l223) at the
time of the death of Herod Agrippa I.-and, if the conv~rsion of
Paul occurred shortly after the death of Jesus, and this last
not much more than a year after the appearance of the Baptist
in the fifteenth year of Tiberius (;.e., 28-29 A . D . ; Lk. 3 I), there
remains the interval of seventeen (or, at least, fourteen). years
demanded by Gal. 118-2 I between Paul’s conversion and the
famine, cp CHRONOLOGY, $ 74 8 Thus the account of the
journey in Acts requires correction only in one point : the alms
were sent not before but after the beginning of the famine.
Still, since it mentions no object for the journey
besides the sending of alms, the narrative of Acts niay
be charged with having passed over in complete silence
the conference mentioned in Gal. 21-10.
‘Thisis no trifling matter. It is remarkable that a conference
upon the same subject should follow in Actsl5, for a repetition
of the discussion within the next few years is not conceivable;
observe, too, that no reference is made in Acts15 to an earlier
decision. The journey mentioned in Acts 113-at all events,
as far as Paul is concerned-may, on other grounds, be con-
sidered open to the suspicion of having been detached from
the circumstances recorded in Acts 20 3 2 1 77 (cp I Cor. 16 4
1 The word is used in a concrete sense (‘obedient ones’)
in Is. 11‘4 : cp MI 28, nynwn 1337 51, ‘all Daihon was obedient.’
2 That it extended over the whole world ( o L K o u ~ C ~ ) is an
error of Acts.
916
 COUNCIL O F JERUSALEM
Rom. 15z5J) and of having been transferred, whether hy
mistake or pu:posely, to a far too early position in the narrative
(see S IMON MAGUS).
b. In order to avoid recognising the contradiction
between Gal. 2 and Actsl5, a whole class of writers
have assigned the Council of Jerusalem to the journey
recorded in Actsl822. They ignore the objection that
on this view Paul in Galatians suppresses important
facts so'far as to pass over two journeys to Jerusalem
without mention.
c. On the other hand, it is a mistake to suppose
that Acts1822 does not imply a visit to Jerusalem
at all.
Although bvapa's in&U signify the journey up from the shore
to the town of Cesarea, a man could not possibly be said to go
down ( K ~ T & ) from a seaport town to an inland city like Antiocb.
Thus we are hound to supply 'to Jerusaleni ' in v. 22 a-as is done
hy many interpreters even when denying the historical actuality
of the journey. 00this last point, however we cannot in fair-
ness appeal to the negative evidence of Galatians. True it is
silent as to this journey; but its historical review never reaches
the point at which mention of it would have come in. instead
of continuing such a review, after describing the occuirence at
Antioch (2 11-21) the writer passes on to dogmatic and thence
to practical questions, entirely losing sight of his original
purpose, which was to enumerate all his personal encounters
with the original apostles. It may indeed be thought rernark-
able that Jerusalem, if intended, islnot rnekoned in Acts 182 2 .
but this does not warrant the assumption now to be mentioned.'
d. Some critics have assumed that the Council of Jeru-
salem was really held on this occasion (Acts 1822))and
not earlier-the author, having purposely transposed it
to an earlier date, would express himself a s briefly and.
obscurely as possible when he came-to the point a t
which it really occurred.
This assumption has the advantage of bringing not only the
first (Acts 13 f:) but also the second (16 1-18z z ) missionary
journey within the first seventeen years after Paul's conversion
thus providing material to fill up a period otherwise inexplicabl;
barren of events. It cannot, however, be urged in its favour
that Barnabas was personally known to the Galatians and the
Corinthians, and that he cannot have been separated from Paul
(A:ts 1535-40) until after the second missionary journey during
which the communities in Galatia-;.e., Old Gala& (see
GALATIAj a n d in Corinth were established ; for the passages
Gal. 2 I g 13 I Cor. 9 6 are perfectly intelligible on the assumption
that Barnahas was known to the readers by report alone.
T h e assumption of such a transposition is entirely
wanting in probability.
The motive prompting the writer to transpose the Council of
Jerusalem to an earlier date is supposed to have been the desire
to bring the whole of Paul's missionary work from its beginning
within the scope of the decree of the apostles (Acts1528f:);
hut, had this really been the writer's intention, he would have
introduced the council not before Acts16 but before Actsl3.
What should have hindered him from so dding, if it be assumed
that he allowed himself to make free with his materials in this
way at all, is not apparent.
e. Others actually transpose the journey described in
ActslSf: so as to make it come between the Council of
Jerusalem and the separation of Barnabas from Paul,
and therefore after Acts 15 34.
The+-,strongest reason is the fact that Paul mentionsonly Syria
and Cilicia as his places of residence up to the Council of Jeru-
salem (Gal. 121). This is hardly conclusive, for, although Paul
was pledged to enumerate all his meetings with the original
apostles, he was not bound to mention all the provinces in which
he had resided without meeting them. In any case,'even if the
transposition of Acts 13 f: and Acts 15 1-34 be accepted, this
gives no support to the assumption mentioned under d,since for
that assumption the writer of Acts has put the two sections
exactly in the wrens order : his supposed purpose, as well as
the motive of historical accuracy, would have led him to put
15 1-34 before 131-1428.
f. I t is only by very bold treatment of the different
sources of Acts, by which the accounts of Paul's journeys
in Acts11 f: 1 5 38 become merely the result of an
erroneous combination of the writer's authorities, that
Clement (ChronoZ. d. PauZin. BY. 1893) contrives to
identify Gal. 2 with Acts 21, and Joh. Weiss (St.u. Kr.,
1893,pp. 480-540 ; 1895,pp. 252-269),onthecontrary,
with Acts 9 and (at the same time) with Acts 151-4 12.
I t is, in fact, quite impossible to deny the identity of the
events related in Gal. 2 and in Acts 15. See C HRONO -
LOGY, $ 74.
I n view, however, of the doubts cast upon Acts, it is
917
an error of method to make that book the basis for an
2. Gal.211-zI investigation of the present question. I t
the primary might even seem well to begin by laying
__ aside Acts altogether and ascertaining
I _ _ _ _
passage. the facts from Galatians alone. Thai
method, however, would prevent certain questions from
receiving adequate consideration, and no harm need be
apprehended in treating both accounts, circumspectly,
together. It is, however, of unqualified importance to
take Gal. 211-21 as the starting-point, because that
passage alone throws any really clear light upon the
circumstances.
Peter was no uncompromising Judaiser. Before the
dispute at Antioch recorded in Gal. 211-21 he had
3. The dispute eaten with Gentile Christians. If he
abandoned this practice after the arrival
at Antioch. of the followers of James, he could not,
accustomed as he was to adopt the attitude of a loader,
have been influenced in the least by the fear of the repre-
sentatives of circumcision-his alleged motive-had he
not himself recognised their position as the right one.
H e must in his inmost heart have still been continuing
to attach some importance to the Mosaic laws relating
to food. Thus, he could not yet have attained to that
liberty in principle which belonged to Paul. This free-
dom Paul conceivably assumed to be present in Peter, as
it was in himself; in which case he could attribute Peter's
antagonism only to hypocrisy. Critics have softened
the charge of hypocrisy into a charge of inconsistency,
such as is very frequently to be observed at times of
transition in natures that have no very firm grasp of
principles.
Different from Peter's position was that of James.
Whether the ' certain ' ( T L V Q E ) were expressly sent by
him in order to recall Peter to the Law, or whether they
attempted to do this on their own account without his
commission ( ' from James,' dm3 ' I U K ~ J ~ OinUN, T Greek
does not go necessarily with ' came,' PXBeiv, and it may
equally well be taken with ' certain,' TrvQs), is immaterial.
Peter, the leader of the apostles, would certainly never
have submitted to their commands if they had not had
behind them the authority of James. Now, the position
of James as distinct from that of Peter can only have
been that a man born a Jew was still under religious
obligation even as a Christian to observe the whole of
the Mosaic Law. It cannot be supposed that he upheld
this obligation only as convenient for the time, or even
merely as a beautiful custom; a motive of the most
serious kind must have been actually held out to Peter,
if he was to submit to be driven to so absolute a renunci-
ation of brotherly intercourse with the Gentile Christians.
As we are not informed of any answer from Peter to
Paul's reprimand in Gal. 2 14-21, it is commonly (though
very rashly) assumed that Peter admitted his error.
That Paul should record an exculpatory answer from
Peter, however, was hardly to be expected, if only for the
reason that he must have thought it inconclusive. Still,
even if Peter was thought to have yielded, the others who
shared his opinion did not yield. Otherwise, why is the
scene at Antioch followed so quickly by the entrance of
the Judaising party into the churches founded by Paul
in Galatia and Corinth, in complete contravention of
the agreement in Gal. 29, and by the nearly successful
attempt to induce the Galatians to adopt circumcision
(Gal. 5 z f : 61zJ 410) and to alienate the Corinthians
from Paulaltogether(zCor. 114121643-551zf: 75-16)?
How could so important and persistent a movement-
it had already been encountered by Paul on two separate
occasions, both in Galatia and in Corinth (Gal. l g 53
I Cor. 91 z Cor. 114)-have been carried on if it had
been opposed by the first apostles? Whence came the
letters of recommendation which, according to z Cor. 3 I,
these emissaries brought with them? As they formed
the ground upon which the suspicion against Paul as
one who had never known Jesus ( I Cor. 9 I ) proceeded,
what weightier credentials could they have contained
918
 COUNCIL O F JERUSALEM
than the statement that their bearers represented im-
mediate disciples of Jesus? Would the sceptical
Corinthians have been satisfied if the authentication had
come (let us say) from Ephesns, or from some other
town outside Palestine?
How comes it, again, that even at the end of the
second century the pseudo-Clementine homilies (17 19)
represent Peter as reproaching Simon-under whose name
Paul is there attacked (see SIMON MAGUS)--for having
called him a KareyvwupCvos (Gal. 2 11 ; R V ‘ stood con-
demned ’ ) ? This shows how deep a wound was inflicted
on Judaising Christianity by Paul‘s bold attack on Peter.
For this reason, not a word is said in Acts about the
scene : though it is quite inconceivable that the author
had no knowledge of it (see ACTS, § 6). Further, in
the place in Acts where this scene ought to have been
mentioned there is recorded a similar dispute (Irapotuu-
pbs ; Acts 1539) between Paul and Barnabas (see BAR-
NABAS), who, according to Gal. 2 1 3 , had gone over to
the side of Peter. This dispute, however, does not turn
on any question of principle. I t was merely a personal
matter (Acts 15 36-40). T h e conjecture is a tempting one
that this scene, if not an invention, is at least an inter-
polation, based on some written source, introduced for
the purpose of effacing the memory of the more im-
portant quarrels.
W e are now in a position to investigate the Council
of Terusalem itself. It was occasioned. on the Dart of
4. Occasion of Judaistic Christianity, by the appear-
ance of the ‘ false brethren,’ who had
the council. made their- wav unauthorised into the
Pauline and other churches, seeking to spy out and to
suppress the freedom from the Mosaic Law that had
there been attained (Gal. 2 4 ) . As this cannot have been
in Jerusalem, we may accept the statement of Acts (15 I ,
cp 1426) that it was to Antioch they came. Up to that
time no such intrusion had occurred, although the
circumstances at Antioch cannot have long remained un-
known to the leaders at Jerusalem. I t is, therefore, not
improbable that the new and sudden aggressive move-
ment proceeded from recently converted Pharisees, even
though the statement to this effect in Acts155 is made
without reference to 151, and therefore appears to come
from another source. Paul was prompted to go to
the council of the apostles by a revelation (Gal. 22).
Probably it came to him not as a bolt from the blue, but
only after the question to be decided by the council had
already stirred his soul to its depths. No less than his
entire life-work-that of bringing the heathen to Christi-
anity without binding them by the Mosaic Law-was
at stake. According to Acts (152), he and Barnabas
were deputed to go to Jerusalem by the church at
Antioch in consequence of a fruitless discussion there.
This motive for the journey is not, of course, absolutely
incompatible with the revelation mentioned by Paul : but
it is in any case significant that Paul speaks only of the
revelation and Acts only of the-delegation. What-
ever the motive, what is it that Paul can have gone to
Jerusalem in search of? A tribunal to whose verdict he
would voluntarily submit, whatever its tenor? By no
means. He had from .a higher authority his gospel of
freedom from the Law, and cared very little for the
original apostles (Gal. 11 6-9 15-17 2 5 3 ) . Or did he
expect to find among them assistance Against the ‘ false
brethren’? W e think that he did not ; if he did, his
expectation was not justified by the event (see below,
5s 7, 8). The purpose with which he went to Jerusalem
was to discover the source from which the ‘false brethren’
drew their support. He intended to take that support
away from under them, and, in order to do so, it was
necessary that he should appear in person. ‘ Lest by
any means I should be running or had run in vain’
(Gal. 2 2 : p4irws ELS K E V ~ U rpCxw +j EGpapou) is not an
interrogative ; Paul would never have made the justifi-
cation of his work dependent on the judgment of the
original apostles.
919
Were the conferences at Jerusalem public, or were
5. public or !hey private? No clear picture of them
private dis- IS presented in Acts- perhaps because
cussions? the account is compiled from various
sources.
A general assembly is set before us in Actsl54. We may
suppose the private assembly mentioned in 1 5 6 to have been
on another day (though the author says nothing as to this).
Suddenly however in 15 12 ‘all the multitude’ (?raw ~ i ~) { O O S )
is present); and it rLappeariin 15 2 2 as responsible for the final
decision although in 15 23 this is attrihuted to the apostles and
elders o;ily. Paul on the other hand, in the words KaT’ X a v ,
‘ privately ’ (Gal. Zh), passes from a public to a private conference
as also probably in 2 6-for the discussion about the circumcisio;
of Titus (2 3-5) can most easily he supposed to have occurred in
a public assembly in which expression was also given to the
position which the‘ original apostles did not themselves finally
adopt.
So far there is no inconsistency between Galatians
and Acts : both know of meetings of both kinds. T h e
crucial question, however, is, Was any final decision
arrived at in a public assembly?
If the decision was not in Paul’s favour, the claims of truth
and of prudence alike must have led him to mention it. Much,
however of what is recorded in Acts-e.g. the speech of Peter
(15 7-rr)Lpoints very clearly to a decision {n Paul’s favour ; and
to pass this over in silence would have been folly.
The picture presented in Acts, therefore, of a decisive
public assembly is entirely incorrect.
The case is similar with what is said, or implied, as
to Paul’s attitude towards the original apostles. Accord-
ing to Acts, he holds quite a subordinate
6.
attitude to position. He is allowed to state his
the original case, but not to take part in the debate :
he has simply to submit to the decision.
apostles. According to Galatians, he debates as
with his equals. Indeed, he even refers to the original
apostles ironically as ‘of repute,’ ‘reputed to be
pillars,‘ ‘ t o be somewhat ’ (01 GOKODVTES [urDhoi &ai or
d v a l TL]: 2 2 9 6 ) .
Even if it be granted that the title ‘pillars’ (ot u ~ 0 A o r may
)
have been originally applied to the; by their adherents as a
term of honour, the phrase ‘reputed’ ( 0 ; GoKoirvrer) cannot have
been so used. It is explicitly derogatory. The most that can
be done to soften the force of Paul’s irony is to conjecture that
he did not invent the expression until the incident at Antioch
had diminished his respect for them.
Paul took Titus as his companion of set purpose.
,.
The uncircumcised assistant of his missionary labours
Buestion of would serve as an ‘ object-lesson ’ in
circumcision support of his fundamental principle.
-~ n , _ l _ _ _ An attempt was made to procure his
01 IlbUB.
circumcisibn ; but, owing tothe opposi-
tion of Paul and Barnahas, it had to be abandoned.
This is clearly the meaning of Gal. 2 3-5, and only the most
violent feats of critical ingenuity can find any other explanation
of the passage. One interpretation is that no attempt whatever
was made ( O ~ K4wayKddlq) to procure the circumcision of Titus.
If so, why the opposition of Paul and Barnabas? Again, the
attempt was made, yet not on grounds of principle, but in the
interest of Paul. to save him from dailv defilement. How did
he avoid defilement from other Gentile-converts, with many of
whom he associated daily? Perhaps, on account of the ‘false
brethren,’ Paul did, after all, of his own accord, allow Titus to
be circumcised. Did he hope thereby to maintain the truth of
the gospel (Gal. 2 5 ) that no man need be circumcised? It has
even been proposed to follow the Greek text and the Latin
version ofD with Irenzeus. Tertullian. and other Western fathers.
in omitting the negative’(oJ6Q)in Gal. 2 5 (whether to whom,’
ols, also be omitted is of less importance), as if Paul could have
been so blind as to consider compliance at the most critical
moment to be harmless, because only temporary ( r p b s &pav).
I t is, on the contrary, prohable that after 2 5, to complete the
sentence heginning with 2 4, we ought to supply not ‘ we did not
give place’ (OJK sl.$apv), as if, had the false brethren not
appeared, Paul would have been prepared to comply, but ‘(on
account of the false hrethre:) it was all the more necessary to
offer a strenuous opposition. For at the outset they had de-
manded the circumcision of all Gentile converts even. As this
is expressly stated in Acts 15 I 5, it is the more certain that it is
necessarily presupposed by the negative (oh&? of Gal. 2 3 ; no-
thing worse occurred and not even Titus was compelled to be
circumcised. The wbrst thing that might have occurred would
according to 2 a, have been that Paul should have run in vai;
(eis ~ w b Bpapsv)--i.e
u that a decree should have been passed
pfohibitj?g the admiss;& of Gentiles into Christianity without
circumcision.
Thus the demand for the circumcision of Titus appears
920
 COUNCIL O F JERUSALEM
as a compromise proposed for the first time when the
original proposal for the circumcision of all Gentile con-
verts met with insuperable opposition from Paul and
Barnabas. The very circumstantiality of a conference
that passed through so many aspects is enough to show
that these proposals could not possibly have been made
without at least the moral support of the original apostles.
Had the latter been on Paul's side from the first (it has
been held that they are to be included in the subject of
'gave place,' E ~ & ~ L E v ) , any attempt of the kind must
have been instantly frustrated by their authority.
It is therefore, useless to construe Gal. 2 4 as a reason suhse-
quentl; introduced to explain 2 3, as though the circumcision of
Titus was refused by all parties alike, for the reason that it was
demanded by the 'false brethren' alone. Considerations of
language also render inadmissible the other interpretation which
supplements so as to read 'and indeed on behalf of the'"fa1se
.
brethren" . . it was said that he ought to he compelled to he
circumcised (rjvuy.a'& without 0;~). The importance attached
to the memory of the case of Titiis is hest shown in Acts ; his
name is never mentioned at all, those who accompanied Paul
to the conference being 'Barnahas and certain others' (rims
dhhoi Actsl5z; see ACTS 6 9). It is not going too far
theretore. to say that the diginal apostles were at the ontsei
undecided in their attitude ; indeed, if we may judge by what
occurred soon afterwards at Antioch, this understates the case.
In harmony with this attitude was that which they
adopted towards the subsequent mission to the Gentiles.
*. The apostles Paul's practice of admitting Gentiles
and the mission as members of the Christian Church
to the Gentiles. without circumcision cannot have ob-
tained the sanction of the other
apostles at the outset. Assent was wrung from them
with difficulty. Indeed, they did not give way on any
ground of principle; otherwise their behaviour in the
dispute at Antioch would have been impossible. They
gave way only because of the divine verdict as shown
...
by the event ( ~ S ~ V T E S Y Y ~ V T E Sr+v Xdprv T+V So8ciudv
pot, Gal. 2 7 9 ; cp Acts1541z), to which they submitted
perforce, though without recognising its underlying
justification. Peter and James, therefore, cannot have
expressed themselves, even approximately, as in Acts
157-21 they are said to have spoken. Had what Petet:
(157J) enjoins in regard to Cornelius really occurred,
there would have been no Council of Jerusalem at a11
(A CTS , 9 4).
Peter is further said (15 9) to have declared that God had re-
moved the difference between Jews and Gentiles by purifying the
hearts of the Gentiles-as though in the eyes ofa Jew the impurity
of the Gentiles were impurity of the heart alone. He is, moreover,
represented as sayiog(l5 1I)that his hope ofsalvation was through
the grace of God alone, whereas at Antioch he maintained that
the ohservance of the Law was necessary to salvation. Finally
(15 IO), he calls the Law a yoke intolerahle even to the Jews ; yet
at Antioch he again submitted himself to it. H e calls it a
tempting of God to put the yoke on the Gentiles also; yet at
Antioch he broke with the Gentiles because they did not take
it on themselves, thus putting moral pressure upon them to
Judaise' (iovSuZ'<ew: Gal. 2 14). In short the speech of Peter
is so eminently Pauline that Weizsacker 'found it possible to
believe that the author of Acts took the speech of Paul against
Peter in Gal. 2 14-21 as the foundation for its composition.
There is evidence on the other side that the author did to some
extent correctly estimate the positions of the speakers-in the
fact that the speech of James is considerably more reserved. The
reference to Cornelius in 15 14, however, is just as unhistorical as
that in 157f: James cannot possibly have employed the quota-
tion from Amos unless it be maintained that the discussion was
carried on in the language of the hated foreigners; for in the
.original it is not said that the residue of men and all nations to
I whom Gad's name had been made known should seek the Lord
-it is only said that the Israelites should again attain to political
dominion over Edom and the other nations that had at any time
been under the dominion of God (Le., of Israel).l And James
pays his tribute to Paulinism if he implies that the imposition of
the whole Mosaic Law upon the Gentiles is a burden to them
from which as being such, they ought to he relieved (15 19).
Furthermore, he did not make the positive proposal of 1520.
See helow, 8 IO.
The result of the conference, according to Galatians,
was a 'fellowship' (Korvwvla) (29). What the precise
1 Itwas the LXX that first read instead of iuy*,pointing
o-$$ 'instead of nix, and making OlN n'lNW, etc., subject
instead of ohject ; and only a few MSS of the LXX have gone
so far as to supply the now lacking ohject, without any support
from the original, by interpolating rbv ~ d p r o v .
921
extent of this Korvwvfu was can be learned only by
inference from the incidental facts.
9. Result of A
accord- division of missionary districts was
ing to Gal. arranged. The reason why the
original apostles desired to carry
on their work only among the Jews can be gathered
with absolute certainty from the situation of affairs
which had been brought about. The separation
of the missionary districts had beem the result of
the conference concerning the circumcision of the
Gentile converts. H a d the circumcision of these
converts been decided on, the original apostles need
have felt as little cause to shrink from missions to the
Gentiles as a Jew had to shrink from the work of
winning proselytes. As the sequel at Antioch shows,
what they found intolerable was the idea of that intimate
daily association with uncircumcised brethren which
would have become unavoidable if missionary work had
been engaged in by them without circumcision of the
Gentiles. That was the reason why they abandoned
this part of the work to Paul and Barnabas. T o look
for the reason of the separation of missionary districts
in differences of aptitude for winning either Gentiles or
natural Jews is to misapprehend the causes that were
really at work. Such consideration; as those mentioned
may have had some concurrent influence; but how
could the scene at Antioch have been possible if differ-
ence of aptitudes had been the sole or even the chief
cause of the separation? Not a word is there said about
Peter's missionary work : the only question is whether
he is prepared to eat at the same table with Gentile
converts.
I t is equally certain that the separation of districts
was intended in an ethnographical, not in a geographical,
sense. Had the original apostles undertaken to labour
for the conversion of the Gentiles as well as for that
of the Jews in Palestine without insisting upon cir-
cumcision, they would immediately there have found
themselves face to face with all the difficulties which
had caused them to avoid the Gentile countries and
confine their efforts to the land of their fathers.
The separation had no purpose unless missions to
natural Jews were to be assigned to them as their
province. Conversely, Paul and Barnabas were, of
course, to go only to men of Gentile birth : Jews seek-
ing salvation whom they met in Gentile countries they
were bound to turn aw'ay, referring them for guidance
to itinerant Jewish-Christian missionaries. This
might have led to the further consequence that in one
and the same town there would have arisen two
Christian communities, one of Jews and one of Gentiles.
Association at meals, as well as at the Lord's Supper,
would have been impossible between them. This
intolerable state of affairs, however, was exactly what
the Pauline churches had long ago contrived to avert ;
and this success was regarded by Paul as the highest
triumph of the view of Christianity which he advocated.
It is very reasonable to ask how he could have had any
share in an arrangement by which, in the churches he
had founded, the wall of separation between Jewish
and Gentile Christians, which it had cost so much
labour to destroy, was again raised up. T o fall back
on the view that the separation was intended to be
geographical would, however, be wrong. A separation
on such a basis the apostles, as has already been
shown, could not possibly have accepted. It would be
necessary to draw the conclusion that the statement of
Galatians must be pronounced unhistorical, and the
epistle itself non-Pauline, were there really no other
way out of the difficulty. Before taking this step,
however, we shall do well to remember that men have
often enough agreed upon a compromise without hav-
ing formed any adequately clear conception of its
consequences. The Christian church would speedily
have fallen asunder into two separate communities, the
one of Jewish and the other of Gentile Christians, had
922
 COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM
no agreement been reached. Neither of the parties
was able to abandon its view: each felt itself under
a strict religious obligation to maintain its own principles.
There must, therefore, have been the greatest eagerness
to grasp at any formula that presented itself as a
solution. ' W e to the Jews, you to the Gentiles,'
appeared to be a formula of the kind, and joy in the
renewed sense of brotherhood may have blinded men's
eyes to the. impracticability of the proposal. This
would happen all the more readily if the formuIa was
so loose that each party could understand it in a
different sense. In the absence of more precise de-
finition, the geographical interpretation must have
seemed to Paul as obviously the correct one as the
ethnographical interpretation appeared to the other
apostles-to Panl, who became not merely to the Gentiles
a Gentile, but also to the Jews a Jew, fhat he might by
all means win some, and, in order to save those belong-
ing to his own race, would willingly have been accursed
from Christ (I Cor. 920f. Rom. 93 ; cp B AN , I ) . I q
the scene at Antioch the misunderstanding revealed itself
only too clearly ; hut this does not prove that there was
no misunderstanding at Jerusalem. Even in the aspect
under which the matter had to be presented I t the con-
ference at Jerusalem, the unity sought for was limited.
The right hand of fellowship' (&EL& Kowwvias) which
they held out to each other was at the same time a
parting handshake. According to their fundamental
I disproves the historicity of the decision, whether in the
principles, the Jewish Christians neither would nor could
have any very intimate communion, any really brotherly
intercourse, with the Gentile Christians. I t is worthy of
notice that the support of the poor is represented in Gal.
210 less as being the only demand made upon the
Pauline churches than as being the only bond by which
the two halves of Christendom were to he kept together.
There is, however, no necessityfor assuming that these
alms from the Gentile Christians were like temple dues,
or intended to express a position of inferiority as com-
pared with that of Jewish Christians. In view of the
notorious poverty of the church at Jerusalem (see COM-
MUN I TY OF G OODS, 5). it would have been unreason-
able to require reciprocity, and doubtless Panl was glad
to evince his goodwill on such neutral ground. For
the rest, it was quite impossible that the Gentiles should
be treated by the Jews as having equal rights and full
citizenship in the kingdom of God. T h e O T promises
applied only to the chosen race and to those who had
been received into it by circumcision. T h e Jewish
Christians had made the concession-from their point
of view a concession of real magnitude-of sanction-
ing the mission to the Gentiles without circumcision ;
but it was not to be supposed that this could be
granted except on the basis that this class of
converts was to hold somewhat the same position as
that of the semi-proselytes (ue,Bbpeuot TAU M u ) among
the Jews : they figured only as a 'younger branch in
the kingdom of God.' In no' case could the original
apostles have set the same value on the conversion of
these Christians of the second class through the agency
of Paul as on their own missionary activity. I t is
remarkable that Gal. 286 does not run, on the analogy
of 28a, 'unto the apostleship of the Gentiles' ( E I S
~ ~ T O U T O EBuOu).
T L~ ~+Y~ Freedom of construction is, of
course, a characteristic of Paul's style, and thus ' unto
the Gentiles' (EIP T & E h q ) also may be explained as
a case of brachylogy. Still, it is noteworthy that-e.g.,
in I Cor. 9 I-he does not base any appeal on the fact
that apostleship (&TOUTOX$) had been conceded to him
by the original apostles. How effective-if open to him
-this appeal would have been against the Judaizers at
Corinth who called his apostleship in question, and set
up those very apostles as the supreme authority ! T h e
truth is that he does not appear to have received any
such recognition. Thus he would seem to have been
recognised only as a fellow-worker, in the Christian field,
not as a fully accredited apostle.
923
According to Acts, the result of the Council %-as the
decree in 1523-29. . . Nevertheless, as long as the words
I
' imparted nothing to me ' (;pol . ..
lo*z;d o66hu ?rpouav&um), in Gal. 2 6 , are
allowed to stand. we shall be Dre-
cluded from accepting this finding as a forVal decree.
Whether the words mean ' T h e ~ O K O F V T E Simparted
nothing further to m e ' (so according to 116), or that
' They made no further rejoinder to my c6mmunication '
(so according to 2 2 ) . is immaterial. Their meaning is
made clear by ' contrariwise ' ( T O ~ V U U T ~ O Uin) 2 7 : ' Not
only did they say nothing unfavourable to me, but also
they pledged themselves to fellowship with me.' W e
cannot better convince ourselves of the certainty of this
conclusion than by examining the attempts that have
been made to avoid it.
Theologians have done their utmost to maintain that Paul
was justified in using the words ;poi 06Siv Irpowav.'Osv7o, instead
of mentioning the decree of the apostles, because the decree was
known to the Galatians already, or because he did not want to
put a weapon into the hand of his opponents, or because the
decree was only temporary-perhaps, not binding at all, but
merely having reference to a custom, the ohject of which has
been even discovered to be the protection of the Gentiles against
trichinosis. In the last of these methods of evading the
interpretation stated abo,ve, all idea of a formal decree having
been promulgated is given up ; hut even if the agreement on the
substance of the decision had been only verbal, Paul could not
have said, l p o i 06Sdv wpowav8sv.ro.
Apart from this, the dispute at Antioch conclusively
form of a regular decree or not. I t is clear that any such
arrangement,' had it been come to, would have had the
effect of rendering it possible for Jewish and Gentile
Christians to associate with one another at meals. If
(as is stated in Actsl64) Panl and Silas continued to
enforce the decree during their next journey, we are
bound all the more to suppose that it came into force
at Antioch immediately after its promulgation there.
I n that case, James and his followers had no reason for
taking offence at Peter's eating with Gentile converts.
If, then, we are forced to admit that no arrangement
of this nature was made at the Council at all, there are
many who would like to retain the opinion that Paul
was substantially in favour of such an arrangement.
This. however is a mistake. The four Drohibitions are
ll. Its prohibi- taken, either from the seven ' Noachic
precepts' (as they are called in the
tions. Talmud), by means of which a modus
vivendi is said to have been arrived at between the Jews
and the 'sons of Noah' (the Gentiles), or directly from
the original ordinances on which those are based (Lev.
l710-l830), which likewise were promulgated, not for
the Israelites alone, but also for the foreigners in their
midst. T h e latter source is the more probable, for
the Talmud prohibits actual unchastity ; but it cannot
be doubted that, had such a prohibition appeared to be
at all necessary in Acts 15, the prohibition of murder and
of theft would also have been adopted from the Talmud.
I n its association with ordinances so far from being
common to all mankind, so peculiarly Jewish, as the
prohibition of blood, of the flesh of animals that had
died or been strangled, and of the flesh of animals
sacrificed to idols, it is much more likely that the
interdict upon what is here called ~ o p v e l arefers to
marriages within the degrees of affinity forbidden in Lev.
186-18 (cp B ASTARD ). Moreover, as the passage in
Leviticus lies at the foundation of Acts 15, in a general
way only, it is possible that marriages with Gentiles also
may have been included ; these were prohibited by Ex.
3416 Dt. 7 3 Ezra92, and would have made it quite im-
possible for a Jewish Christian to enter the house of a
Gentile who had contracted such a marriage.
Now, as to Paul's view in regard to eating things sacri-
ficed to idols, we have full and exact information. As a
general rule ( I Cor. 8 1023-33 Rom. 1414) he allows it :
it is to be avoided only in cases where it might cause
offence to a weak Christian who mistakenly thinks that
the Levitical prohibition of it is of perpetual obligation.
924
 COUNCIL O F JERUSALEM
Paul does recognise, it is true, one exception, which he
mentions in I Cor. 1014-22,though, curiously, not in
the exactly similar case in 810 (cp DEMONS, 5 8) ; but
even this passage contains no prohibition of the practice
excepting at a religious ceremony of this kind. In the
decree of Acts, on the contrary, the eating of things
offered to idols is, it need hardly be said, forbidden in
all circumstances, just as to partake of blood, or of the
flesh of animals that have died or been strangled, is
forbidden. Here the prohibition turns on the nature
of the thing itself (cp dhiumpa, Acts 1 5 20) : the soul
was thought to reside in the blood (Lev. 1711rq), and
to eat the soul would have been an abomination. Now,
as Paul does not concur in the decree of the apostles
on the question of eating animals sacrificed to idols, it
would not be wise to assume his agreement in regard
to the prohibition of blood and of the flesh of animals
that had died or been strangled, about which we have
no expression of opinion by him. As to the question
of marriage, he carried on an uncompromising warfare
against unchastity of every kind ( I Cor. 5 6 12-20); but
unchastity does not appear to have been what was
intended in the decree of the apostles. Marriages with
unbelievers, on the contrary, he did, it is true, advise
against ( I Cor. 739). but in no case on grounds of
principle. Otherwise he could not have enjoined that
a Christian married to an unbelieving spouse should
continue the relation if the other consented ; nor could
he have declared that the unbelieving spouse was
sanctified by marriage with a Christian, and that even
the children of a mixed marriage were holy ( I Cor.
7 rz-14). The children were not baptised ; if they had
been, their sanctity w-ould have been a consequence of
their baptism, and not deducible from their connection
with their parents simply. Accordingly, if Paul dis-
courages marriages with unbelievers for the future (739),
his reason cannot have been that they were in themselves
wrong, but only that they were incompatible with the
deeper spiritual sympathy of true spouses. On these
grounds we are obviously still less entitled to assume
that Paul would have pronounced to be wrong all
marriages within the degrees of affinity, down to that
with a sister-in-law, forbidden in Lev. 186-18, except in
those case5 which are manifestly contrary to nature, as,
e.$. , that given in I Cor. 5 1-8. On no single point,
therefore, does Paul even express substantial agreement
with the restrictions imposed by the decree of the
apostles.1
T h e last attempt to rescue some remnants of credi-
bility for Acts connects itself with 2125. Here Paul
is acquainted with the decree of the apostles as if it
were something new. I t is absolutely impossible to
reconcile this with the representation of Acts 15 ; but
it is suggested that, if the latter has to be abandoned
on account of Galatians, it may be possible to retain at
least what j s said in Acts 21. On this view the apostles
issued the decree simply on their own responsibility,
without consulting Paul ; and this version of the matter
was derived by the author from one of his sources.
Unfortunately, the source of this passage (at least,
according to all attempts hitherto made to distinguish
the sources of Acts) is made out to be the same as
that of Actsl5z0, or of 1528 3 , or of both those
passages. T o avoid this conspicuous failure in the
argunient, J. Weiss deletes from the account in
1 Some scholars have upheld the modified view that these
restrictions were at all events customarily observed at the time
among the Gentile Christian;, many of whom had previously
been semi-proselytes to Judaism and would therefore have
naturally continued to obey these ordinances as Christians ;
and these would have been followed by the other Gentile con-
verts. The only church, however, concerning which we have
any information in this conneciion proves the contrary. In
Corinth Paul had to contend with the very worst modes of
unchastity, and with practices in regard to things offered to
idols that went too far even for him ; and mixed marriages were
quite usual. It is hardly possible to believe that things conld
have been so completely different elsewhere, even if Corinth was
exceptionally bad in these respects.
925
15 5-11 13-33 (for 15 1-412, see above, § I div. f.)
all references to Paul and Barnabas (152225) as
editorial additions, and assumes that in the original
source 155-31 13-33 related only to the conference of the
original apostles among themselves, which is then
called to mind in 21 25. Apart from the extreme bold-
ness of this assumption, it is to be remarlied that
this particular source is considered by Weiss himself,
as well as by all other critics of the sources of Acts, to
be untrustworthy. In particular, the verse in question
(2125) has been actually taken to be an interpolation,
and in fact is so little necessary to the context that if it
were wanting its absence would not be noticed. Read
with the context, it causes no difficulty; but the
context itself is not historical (see ACTS, § 7). I n
any conceivable view, therefore, suspicion is thrown
on the verse by a critical examination of the sources.
In the absence of any confirmation, it certainly does
not possess enough of internal probability to justify its
acceptance.
In fine, it appears that the Tubingen school is not
without justification n maintaining that the decree of
the apostles is a fiction invented by the author for the
purpose of promoting a union of Jewish and Gentile
Christians. Only, in the second century it would have
been little calculated to secure this object. T h e as-
sumption is that these regulations were new at the time
of writing. Now, they contain very stringent restric-
tions upon the freedom of the Gentile Christians in the
interests of the Jewish; but the Gentiles were at that
time so largely in the majority and so full of the
consciousness of their title to membership in the Church,
that they would hardly have acquiesced in such re-
strictions then. Resides, the regulations contained in
the decree of the apostles must, in their essence, have
been actually in force at the time of the composition of
Acts (see ACTS, 16), however little they may have
been so in the first century.
The Epistle of Barnabas (36 46) betrays traces of this in
the complaint that Christians believed themselves bound to
observe the Mosaic Law and from the middle of the second
century there is evidence 'of this on all hands (Did. G 3 : Justin,
Dial. 35 ; Luc. de mort. P e r e p . 16 :EpistZefrom Lugdununzof
the year 177 in Eus. H E v. 126. Irenaeus adu. H e r . i. 6 2
[ch. 1,$121) ; kertullian, ApoZ. chap;. 7 9 ; Mi;. Felix, Octau. 30;
CZem. Houz. 7 3,f 8, and Rerog. 4 36 ; Clem. Alex. Ped. iii. 25
(ii. 8f Strotn. 499, ed. Sylhurg, 62, 98, 2 1 9 ~ 5 ) ;Origen, c.
Cels. g(24) 30 ; Orac. Sibyll. 2 96).
Possibly the first traces of such a custom or of an
attempt to introduce it are to be found in Rev. 214 20-25,
where the writer speaks only of meat offered to idols and
of 7ropveia.
The solution of the question would thus seem to be
that the author of Acts, finding this custom in his own
day, assumed in simple faith that it must date back to
the time of the apostles, and (by a bold process of
combination) represented its establishment as being the
settlement of the dispute which he knew to have raged
in those early times. His reverence for the apostles
and the assumption (to him a matter of course) that
complete harmony had prevailed among them supplied
colours for the picture which differs so widely from the
truth. In any case, the gradual rise of the custom
itself finds its explanation in the effort to establish a
modus vinendi between Jewish and Gentile Christians.'
Only, it was due not to the demands of the strict Jewish
Christians of the Council of Jerusalem-men who could
not have been satisfied by the observance of so small a
portion of the Law-but rather to the demands of the
Jewish Christians of the Dispersion, who had on their
own side long ago emancipated themselves from strict
obedience to the Law, yet could not overcome their
repugnance to certain extreme deviations from it.
In conclusion, we learn from our investigation of the
subject that the Council of Terusalem did not possess
12. ~ : c p ~ ~ ~ cthelus i o n . which its comparatively
importance
official character appears to claim for
_ I
it. It had far less influence upon the history of primitive
926
 COUNSELLOR
Christianity than the dispute at Antioch, which speedily
undid everything that the Council of Jerusalem had
achieved. The discussion of the question has led to
elucidations of the h!ghest value for a knowledge of the
position of parties among the early Christians. These
were not, as the Tiibingen School assumed, only two.
They were at least four-the parties (or, as they should
rather be termed, the ‘ schools ’) of Paul, of Peter, of
James, and of the ‘false brethren.’ Thus, even from
the earliest period, there were the intermediate positions
between extreme parties, which, according to the
Tiibingen School, only arose from compromises in the
second century. Primitive Christianity presents a
picture far more rich in detail and in colonr than that
view supposes. Its critics must be prepared to take
into account the finest distinctions of shade.
The critical discossioo of the subject was initiated by the
Tiihingen school : Baur (PauZus, 1845) ; Schwegler (Nach-
n j o s t d k h e ZeitaZter, 1846): Zeller(Ajoski-
13. Literature. gcsch. 1854). The later phases of the critical
position are represe;ited by Lipsius (Schen-
kel’s Bi6. Lex. S.V. ‘Apostelconvent, and Hundcom~n.2 z ) ;
Weizsicker ( J D T , 1873, pp. 191.246, and A). Zeitalt.);
Pfleiderer (/?‘T, 1883, pp. 75-104,241.262, and PauZinisttzcU);
Holtzmann (ZiVT, 1882 pp. 436-464 and 1883, pp. 159-165);
Hilgenfeld (ZTVT, in vaAoiis articles, ;he latest in 1899, pp. 138-
149, with a new edition of the text). Of an apologetical
character are the contributions of J. Ch. I<. v. Hofmann, Die
heil. Schr. NT 1 1 2 2 - 1 4 0 , 2nd ed. 126.145); Carl Schmidt (De
a$ostoZorunz decreti s e n f e d i n , 1874, and in PlZE(aJ, S.W.
LApostelkonvent’) ; Zimmer (GalaterJr. u. Aposfeberch. 1882) ;
Fraiike (Si.ICr. 1890, py. 659-687). Of the ‘ niedising ’ school ;
Keim (Urrhvirt. i. 64-89 [‘781); Grimm (St. KY.1880, pp. 405-
432). Cp M. 14’. Jacobus (PvmGyt. and Re$ Review, 1897. pp.
509-528. P. w. s.
COUNSELLOR, EV twice C OUNCILLOR (4, below).
Frequent in E V in a general sense, without any official
meaning, or, more specifically, of the king’s personal
adviser or advisers, for which the technical term is
7Qtn ( E V R ECORDE R) ; see G OVERNMENT , 21.
The following terms come into consideration :-
I. y)?17, yZ&, as a title, applied to Ahithophel ( 2 % 1512
I Ch. 27 33), and Jonathan ( I Ch. 27 32 [I l ? i O l 1’32 V’N). Why
Zechariah [y.v., 51 is styled ‘ wise counsellor’ p i ’ ) in I Ch.
2614 is hard to say; the text is probahly faulty. rL!j’ may
menu ‘giver of oracles’ (see context) ; similarly in Is. 41 28
(cp 4426) 2 Ch. 25 r6. It is otherwise used generally ; cp Is.
19 11 Pr. 1114 Joh 3 14, etc. @ D N A renders by povXeu+ io
Job 3 14 1 2 17 : but more commonly u6ppouhos. 111 2s. 8 18
@BAL incorrectly applies the term udppouhos to EENAIAH (I),
apparently reading yyy for y i q n > ; in @BL’s addition to I K. 2
46 A) on the other hand b udppovhop referring to KaXOVp(HP 93,
<U[K]XOup) v k Nal?au Aay rest iipon old tradition. He can he
no other than Zahud (<axovp[L], HP p? < a ~ y o v ph. ) Nathan who
is mentioned in I I<. 45 a5 the ‘king’s iriend’ (so WIT; see
ZABUD, I ). The Aram. equivalent 3?iDy; (pl. with suff.) in
Ezra 7 r4f: is used in reference to the seven counsellors of the
Persian king; cp the seven princes of Media and Persia in
Esth. 113.
2. K;?lQp defhdherayyri,pl. Dan. 3 2 3, the Pers. &ta-Gava,
law-giver, hence a judicial authority.
3. N;?!>?, haa‘driJerayyd, pl. Dan. 3 24 27 4 36 [331 6 7 [SI, ari
unknown Aram. official title. No doubt a compound of the
Pers. Gava (cp ahore) : the first part of the name is perhaps
corrupt. The context plainly shows that the personal attendants
of the king are intended. For z and 3, see Comm. ad Zuc., and
cp E. Meyer, Enlst. 23.
4. j3ouhcunjs,l Mk. 15 43 Lk. 23 50, RV ‘councillor,’ applied
to Joseph of Arimathiea (JosEra, 15). see GOVERNLIENT, $ 31.
5. udppauhos, used generally, Rom. 1134 (quoting Is. 40 13).
ulip@ouhas occurs also in the Apoc., cp Ecclns. 66377f., and
42 21 (where Heb. 1.2~).
COURT (ly!, b y h ~ ) ,‘ a n open enclosure,’ used
commonly in EV with reference to the TEMPLE [T.W.:
(Ex. 2 7 9 Ezek. 816 and often) also of the court of a
house ( 2 S.17 181, or palace ( I K. 7 8) ; see H O U S E , § 2.
For the ‘court of the guard’ (RV, AV ‘ . . . of the
prison ’), xtm i%g,Jer. 322, etc., see J ERUSALEM .
‘Court’ inTii.34 13 EV, 35 7 EVlw., is used indefinitely of ar
abode. The I‘IT has the corrupt form 1’SQ (&A< in 311:
IBNAOrl). 111 z K. 204 the AVw. RV ‘citv’ follows the Kt
COVENANT
y for which the 1;r. correctly presents 1SC ‘court’ (of the
itadel: see AV, RVw.). Finally, ‘court‘ in Am.713 AV,
i used in a different sense, with reference to the royal palace
‘p RV).
A later designation of the temple court is ??vg, ‘dz&-Zh
2 Ch. 49, along with is!, and 613f ; afiX+), a word 01
incertain origin common in M H , not to be confused
vith the equally obscure 3211 E V ‘settle,’ RV“,
letter, ‘ledge,’ viz. of the altar (Ezek. 4314-20 451gt).
111N T aLhd is applied to the sheepfold (Jn. 10 I 16),
ind the temple enclosure (Rev. 1 1 2 ) . Elsewhere (in
he Gospels) RV regularly reads ‘court’ for AV
palace ’ (..,a, Mt. 26 3 69 Mk. 1454 66) or ‘ hall ’ (Mk.
[ 5 16 Llr. 22 55), and nowhere recognises (with Meyer,
;tc.) the classical usage of abX3, to denote a house or
milding.
T h e ‘ fore-court ’ (Mk. 1 4 68 RVmg., ?rpoaLXiov) is
.he first of the two (or more) courts which the larger
mildings contained : see HOUSE..
COUSIN (ANEYIOC ; Col. 410 RV, AV ‘ sister’s
;on ’), in classical Greek a ‘ first cousin ’ or ‘ cousin‘
Zenerally ; also ’ nephew,’ ‘ niece.’ I n Nu. 3611 it
renders iil ~ 2 .Tobit is called the Lveyids of Raguel
(Tob. 7 2 ; also 9 6 [K]).
In Lk. 136 58 the word (myyemfs, u y y y u k ) is quite general :
RV in N T rightly always ‘kinsman, kinswoman,’ pl. ‘ kins-
folk.’ I n rEsd.37 442 I Macc.1131 (RV ‘kinsman’) it is a
title given by a king to one whom he desired to honour.
COUTHA,RVCU’TNA(Koyea [A],om. BL), afamily
of Nethinim in the great post-exilic l i s t (see E Z R A , ii. 5 8) 1 Esd.
5 3 2 !A]-unmentioned in Ezra2;z Neb. ’Ig4-whose name may
possibly be connected with C U T H A H (2 K. 17.24).
COVENANT. The word n’?? (bkrrth) probably
occurred about 285 times in the original OT. Its
1. Terms. constant rendering in d is 6iaBlj~v(auvO?jKr]
Dan. 1 1 6 ; 2v~oXai [B] or ?rpoudypaTa
[A], I I<. 1111). AiaE+~vis used in a few instances
for a kindred term. Yet it is safe to assume that in
the original Hebrew texts of Ecclesiasticus, I Maccabees,
Psalter of Solomon, Assumption of Moses, Jubilees,
Judith, the Apocalypse of Ezra, and Testaments of the
Twelve Patriarchs, nvix was used at least seventy
times where our versions - give 6raO4Kv, . .. ( T U Y L ~ T ’ J K ~or
, an
equivalent.
Aquila and Symmachiis usually, Theodotion frequently,
rendered the word uuul?ljxq. Both words are found in Wisdom 01
Solomon and 2 Maccabees. The N T writers, following the Alex-
andrian version, used exclusively 6LaBljKq, and this determined the
usaee in earlv Christian literature. The Taraums translated
inviriably ~ 3 3 ; ; the Pesh. of the OT gives LX&, hut in
Mal. 24 Zech. 9 II transliterates S L a & j K q , the method adopted
also by the Edessene versions of the NT. In Enoch GO6,
Ethiopic nra@nZaprobably represents Scaerjrq, originally c”p
It is significant that the Assyrio-Babylonian is the
only cognate language in which the word has been found.
Bir~tumeans : ( I ) fetter ; ( 2 ) alliance,
2. Early covenant ; ( 3 ) firmness, solidity. Fetters
of
word ‘b6rIth,, were placed upon the culprit, the
vanquished enemy, the representative
of a conquered city or country, to hold him and to
signify power over him ; in chains h-eived his own
sentence or the decree tonching his home and people
(Sennacherib, ii. 71 ; 5 R. 2, 109 etc.). A fettered
rival might be put under obligations and macle an ally,
and such an enforced subordination might, by n simple
metaphor, be designated ‘ enchainment. ’ ’This term
was then extended to every alliance, even where the
parties were in a position to decide upon a mutually
binding decree, as in the case of Kara-indaS and
,46ur-bEl-ni3Su, 2 R 65 (I<. 4406). As equals did not
actually lay shackles upon each other, this is evidently
a figurative use of the word; and as the thought of
mutual obligation cannot have been immediately
suggested by the imposition of fetters, it is as clearly
secondary. The royal word of judgment or assurance,
particularly when strengthened by an oath, was the
fetter that could not be broken. A ‘fettered’ house
928
 COVENANT
was one firmly built, a ' fettered ' place one surrounded
by solid walls, z R 38, 15-17 (cp dirtu; fortress,
fortified town, from the same root, Shalm. ob. 34, and
see Del. Ass. H W B , 185).
From the Amarna correspondence we know that some
time before the Hebrew invasion a Babylonian dialect
3. Primary was written, and undoubtedly also to
meaning in some extent spoken, in Palestine. The
Israelites may therefore have become
Heb. acquainted with this term through the
i5morites. In the nomadic state, the priestly oracle by
the casting of lots, the min, probably sufficed. Agri-
cultural and city life called for increased civil authority.
I t is possible that n.13 in the sense of 'binding
ordinance,' ' sentence,' was adopted to supply the need
of a corresponding word to designate the judicial
decision of a ruler.
In the Elohistic narratives the denominative >>> occurs with
the significance 'to appoint ' (I S. 178). The noun was still used
by the author -of Ecclesiasticus to denote the sentence pro-
nounced by a judge (3833). The fact that the dominant idea
attached to the word at all times was that of a binding decree is
better accounted for by this Babylotiian derivation than by
recourse to the Arabic darri 'to sever. It also yields a satis-
factory explanation of the early appearance of n.13 in the sense
of 'alliance,' and its occurrence with the signification of 'corn-
munity,' 'nation.' On the other hand, the sometimes-observed
ceremony of passing between the severed pieces of an animal in
makina a solemn nledne niav have been an inheritance from the
nomadic
this rite,
the Greek 6 p a a T ~ , L L V E L :V whilst the secondary meaning of n i 3
'to decree' (cp the gloss to Hag. 25), bears witness to thk
primary and persistent significance of ny,.
The classical distinction between G E u O - ; ~ K(diathZkKi,~
will) and U U V ~ ' ? ~ K ?(synth&,
) agreement) was not entirely
lost in Hellenistic Greek.
uvv8ljrrq is exclusively used of a political alliance in I and
2 Macc. Aquila's preference for u u v 8 4 q cannot he explained
by prejudice ; its use by Symmachus was evidently dictated by
considerations of style ; even Theodotion's conservatism did not
prevent him from abandoning at times the uniform rendering of
the oldest Greek version. I n view of this, the deliberate choice
of Sia8rjxq by the Alexandrian translators can scarcely have
been due to anything else than a consciousness of the funda-
mentnl meaning of nq3. This likewise applies to the indepen-
dent rendering of the word by 0.p in the Targums.
( i , ) CiviL-In civil life the Hebrews seem t o have
employed
- . the. word to denote sentence, decree, ordin-
4. Specialised ance, statute, law, pledge, testament,
significations. alliance, covenant, community, nation.
A successful leader against the enemy
was in early Israel designated a judge ( E ~ D W ) ,because
the foe was regarded as a transgressor, the victory as
a judgment, and the valorous chief as the natural arbiter
in internal feuds (cp GOVERNMEKT, $j17). Even the king
was a judge as well as a warrior, I IC. 3 1 6 3 [J], I 5.820
[E]. When this unity of the judicial and administrative
functions ceased, the old term designating the decision
of a ruler remained in legal phraseology. A collection
of judicial decisions (o*awn) was called a bMth-book,
Ex. 247 [E], the sentence was termed a bCrith (Ecclus.
3833). But it also continued to denote the victor's
decree affecting the condition of a city that capitulates
(e.g., Jabesh, I S. 11I u]), a territory that is ceded (e.g.,
Ishbaal's, represented by Abner, z S. 312 ,f 21 [J]), a
rival kingdom that is forced to come to terms (e.g.,
Benhadad's, I K. 2034 [E]), or a kingdom reduced to a
state of dependence (cg.,Zedelciaxs, Ez. 17 13-19) ; and
it was applied to the ordinance, statute, law, or con-
stitution imposed by a king upon his own people, as
David's ( z S. 53 [J]), p i a h ' s ( z K. 233), Zedekiah's
(Jer. 34 8 8 ), Antiochus s (Dan. 9 27 : ' he shall impose
severe regulations on the many during one week').
Such a royal declaration was considered inviolable ; a
king would not go beyond his word in severity, nor fail
to fulfil his promise. T h e Jabeshites regarded their
lives as safe, if Nahash would solemnly declare his
willingness to rule over them as his servants. Antiochus
Eupator is severely censured (Is. 338) for himself
violating the constitutional rights he had granted ( I
30 929
COVENANT
Macc.6598; z M a c c . 1 3 ~ 2 3 ) . Thus the word assumed
the meaning of ' pledge.'. The captains pledged them-
selves to obey Jehoiada ( z IC. 114), the nobles of
Jerusalem to set their slaves free (Jer. 3 4 8 # ) , Zechariah
and other citizens to drive away their wives (EzralO3).
(ii. ) Domeslic.-Applied to domestic relations the
bsrith was at first simply ' t h e law of the husband'
(Rom. 72). Since a wife was captured, bought, or given
n ~ m a r r i a g eher
, absolute subjection to a man's authority
was properly cliaracterised as ' enchainment.' Social
development, however, without introducing the idea of
equality, tended to emphasise the obligations that go with
power. T h e husbands bCrith became a solemn pledge
given before witnesses (Ez. 16 8 Mal. 2 14). In this sense
the word could be used also of the wife. In Prov. 217
nvii seems to mean ' the promise by her God ' ;
the same pledge of faithfulness is alluded to in Ez. 1661
( ' not for the sake of thy promise '), and possibly also in
4 Esdr. 25. A father's decision was binding upon
his children. Especially the last paternal decree, the
testament, was irrevocable. Whether it was a dis-
position of property or a dispensation of blessings and
curses, deemed effectual in antiquity, it was termed a
b h i t h (Gal. 3 15 Heb. 9 16f, ; Test. xii. patr. passim),
and had the nature of a promise.
(iii. ) ZnternntionaL-Retween nations equal in pourer
a favour conferred or promised calls for a gift in return.
T o perpetuate mutually advantageous relations, pledges
are exchanged. In this way political alliances may
arise with mutual obligations. T h e best example of
such a covenant is that between Solomon and Hiram
(provided the Deuteronomistic note, I IC. 526 [n],can be
relied upon). Of this nature were probably also the
agreements between Hezion and Abijah, Renhadacl and
Asa, and Benhadad and Baasha, referred to in I I<. 1 5 r g
[J]. T h e bErith with Assyria, Hos..l2a [I], was originally
intended as an alliance of this kind, though Hosea had
reason to complain that out of such alliances there
grew only new rights, ;.e., demands (104). Simon's
league with Rome was of the same character (I Macc.
14242640 ; Jos. Ant. xiii. 7 3 ) . l
(iv. ) Fictions.--Since the relations of nations were
thus frequently regulated by a bsrith, it is not strange
that such a basis should sometimes have been assumed
without sufficient foundation. When the once peaceful
Arabic neighbours began to push the Edomites out of
Mount Seir, Obadiah looked upon this as a breach of
covenant on the part of allies (v.7). The simultaneous
attack of several peoples on the Jewish commonwealth
described in I Macc. 5 T 8 , seemed to the author of Ps.
836 to be the result of an alliance against YahwB-i.e.,
Israel. If Amos196 is in its right place (see A MOS,
0 9 a),Tyre is charged with forgetting the ' covenant of
brothers' with some other city or people, probably
Phoenician; kinship is the basis of the assumption.
Zech. 11ref: probably describes a change in the policy
of the reigning pontiff as regards the Gentiles, rather
than actual alliances with neighbouring states, as the
consequent internal feud suggests. I t is also natural
that reconrse should be had to the same fiction to
justify or to condemn present conditions and demands.
In the Negeb, tribes of Israelitish and Idnmean extrac-
tion assured themselves of their rights, against the
Philistines, to certain wells and oases, by virtue of a
solemn pledge given by Abimelech of Gerar to their
heros eponynzus, Isaac (Gen. 2628 [J] 2 1 2 7 8 [E]).
Similarly, the border lines between Aramzan and
Israelitish territory in Gilead were regarded as fixed by
an agreement between Laban and Jacob, securing also
the rights of certain Aramzan enclaves on Israelitish
soil (Gen. 1344 111). Certain remarkable facts in the
history of the Gibeonites (see GIBEON),gave rise to the
story told in Josh. 96f: 15f: [J] 911 [E]-a story which
shows how unobjectionable snch alliances with the
natives were considered in earlier times. When pro-
1 I Macc. 8 17 2 Macc. 411 are scarcely historical.
930
 COVENANT
phetic teaching had led to a recognition of the baneful
influences upon the life of Israel of Canaanitish modes
of thought and worship, the warning took the form of
a prohibition of alliances projected into the period pre-
vious to the invasion (Dt.72 Jud.2z [Dt.] Ex.2332
[E] Ex. 341215 [J]). Gen. 1413, though found in a late
Midrash, may reflect the memory of a long dominant
Canaanitish majority in Hebron, since, with all the
glorification of Abram, the three chiefs Mamre, Eshcol,
and Aner are designated as n’mn .sy>. ‘ holders of the
pledge. ’ T o legitimatise the Davidic dynasty, Jonathan
was represented as having abdicated the throne in favour
of David, while Saul was still alive, on condition of
remaining next to the king in rank ( I S. 23 17 f. [E]).
Such an action on his part was then accounted for by
the story of a still earlier Yahwk-bQith of friend-
ship ( I s. 183 [EA), referred to again in I S. 20816
[R]. The friendship itself is sufficient to explain David‘s
kindness to Jonathan’s family ; but the passage testifies
to the custom of pledging friendship by an oath and a
solemn ceremony.
(v.) BZi.ith= ‘ nation.’-In Dan. l l n z n*i> 1933 is the
title given to Onias 111. This probably means prince
or ruler of the nation. The wlp n w , Dan. 112830, is
the holy nation against which Antiochus Epiphanes
directed his attention and his f u r y ; and w l ? n w q i y
are the apostates who abandoned the holy dation and
lived like the Gentiles (cp I Macc. 115, also Judith913
I Macc. 163). These renegades are called n w ’ywin,
Dan. 1132 ; ‘ those that bring condemnation upon the
nation,’ are responsible for its misfortunes. This
significance should probably also be given to the word
in Ps. 7420 (Hitz., Che.). The n>i> ysn, Mal. 31,
may be the angelic representative of the nation. At a
somewhat earlier period in some inserted passages in
11. Is. (see I S A I A H , ii. § 16, Che. SBUT) n w seems
already to occur in this sense. T h e context indicates that
ny n m , Is. 426 498, is meant to designate Israel as an
independent organised community (lit. ‘a commonwealth
of a people ‘).l Until Israel had regained its status of
independence it could not rebuild the ruined cities, or
restore the land to its former glory. This meaning
may possibly be traced still further hack; B AAL - BERITH
(q.”.), as the Elohist designates the god of Shechem,
may mean ‘god of the community.’ The word used
of the city-kingdom of Shechem in the seventh century
(cp Ass. birtu, J n i x , fortified town) may well have been
applied to the ardently desired kingdom of Zion at the
end of the sixth.
(vi. ) MetnphuricaL -Metaphorically nq> is used in
Job311 of the law that Job has imposed upon his eyes
that they shall not look upon a virgin ; in 40 28 [41 4] of
the pledge which Leviathan is not likely to give, that he
will allow himself to be captured and become a slave ;
and in 523 of J o b s agreement with the stones of the field
that they shall not prevent the cultivation of his land.
No important transaction was done in antiquity
without religious sanction. The oath and the curse
5. Religious were extensively used in judicial proceed-
sanction. ings, legislative enactments, and political
treaties. Before passing sentence, the
judge pronounced a ciirse or adjuration to arouse the
conscience and elicit a confession ( I I<. 831 [D] Nu. 5 21.
[PI Lev.51 [PI Prov.2924 Mt.2663). A pledge or
promise was made more binding by a curse ( ~ S R Ez. , 17 16
Deut. 29 IT ].I[ 20 [zI]). To set forth symbolically this
curse, animals were cut into pieces, and the person giving
the pledge passed between the severed parts, signifying
his readiness to be thus destroyed himself, if he should
fail to keep his promise. I t is to be observed that in the
only passages where this ceremony is referred to (Gen.
1 Cp P?t$ N?; ‘a wild ass of a man,’ <.e., a wild man, Gen.
16 12. So in the main Duhrn, though his conception of n.13 is
different. Di.. Kraetzschmar (Die Bundesvorsfellung, r69), and
Kosrers explain ‘ a covenant with the people’-<.e., one in or
through whom my covenant with the people is realised.
931
COVENANT
1 5 and Jer. 3418f.), there is no question of an alliance,
and only one party passed between the pieces (cp Dictys
Cretensis, Ephemeris beUi Tyojani, i. 15). Whether
this custom was observed also in the conclusion of
treaties, as was the case in Babylonia, if Ephrem was
correctly informed (Cummeizt. to Gen. 15), is uncertain,
and there seems to be no justification for connecting
this rite in particular with an agreement between two
parties, or for supposing n?i> to have, been the name of
a ceremony of which it was an essential part. In most
instances no doubt the oath sufficed. Sometimes the
right hand was given in addition (Ez. 17 18, z Macc. 1322))
or a handshake took the place of the oath (Ezra1019
Prov. 61 1718 2226). I t is possible that during the oath
salt was sometimes thrown into the fire to intensify by
the crackling sound the terror-inspiring character of
the act, originally to render more audible the voice of
the deity in the fire, hence the salt-bgrith (Lev. 2 13 [PI
Nu. 1819 [PI 2 Ch. 135). As vows were taken and
agreements made at some shrine, the numen dwelling
in the sacred stone or structure was the chief witness
(Gen. 3148 [J] 52 [E] Josh. 2427 [E] 2 K. 1 1 4 233), and
a sacrificial meal preceded or followed the act (Gen.
2630[J] 3146[J] Ex. 2411 [J] 2 S. 3zo[J]). The sprink-
ling of sacrificial blood upon the worshipper, a survival
of the custom of sharing it with the deity, appears to
have disappeared early from the cult. But it may have
continued longest in the case of persons taking a solemn
pledge, as is suggested by its use in the installation of
priests (Ex. 2920 [PI Lev. 823 [PI). This would account
for the term bgrith-blood (Ex. 248 [E]). Where an
alliance was desired presents were offered by the party
taking the initiative (Gen. 2127 [E] : probably the sacri-
ficial animals ; Hos. 122 [I] 6).
Since a decree, pledge, or compact was thus, as a‘
6. Divine rule, ratified by some sacred rite at a
,bBrPth., sanctuary, the word n3ii readily assumed
a religisus significance, and was applied to
a solemn declaration of the deity.
(i.) In J , E , and e a d y Pi-ophets.-In the. earliest
Judaean narrative Yahwk gives to Abram a promise
that his descendants shall possess Palestine and symboli-
cally invokes upon himself a curse, if he shall fail to
.
keep it (Gen. 1518 [J] ; cp Gen. 247 [J]). When Moses
is reluctant to leave the mountain-home of his god and
pleads for an assurance that Yahwe shall go with him, a
solemn romise is given him (Ex. 3410 a [J] ; add, with
@ F L , $). The original context can scarcely have been
anything else than a declaration that Yahwk will ac-
compapy his servant, probably in ‘ the messenger,’ the
nin>1t&. This promise was no doubt also referred to
by the Elohist, though the importance of the ark in his
narrative (cp Nu. 1033f: [E]) renders it probable that
Yahwb‘s presence was here connected with this palladium.
After the subjugation of the Canaanites by the first kings
of Israel the question arose as to the justice of this deed.
Israel’s right to the land was then established by the
fiction of a promise given to the mythical ancestor. A
religious problem of grave importance was how Yahwh,
whose home was on Sinai, or Horeb, could manifest
himself at the Palestinian sanctuaries. T h e soliltion
was that he had pledged himself to go with Moses in
‘the messenger.’ The story of Elijah’s visit to Horeb
was probably written early in the eighth century ; in it
n?i>occurs in the sense of commandment ( I K. 1914).
This is also the meaning of the term in Dt. 3396 (the
Blessing of Moses), as the parallel l n i c x shows, and in
Josh. 711 [E]. Hosea uses the word to denote an
injunction of Yahwk upon the beasts of the field not to
harm Israel (220[18]), and a commandment of YahwB in
general (81 : possibly also 67). I t is noticeable that
this prophet, who through a sad domestic ‘experience
learned to apply the figure of a marriage to YahwB’s
relation to Israel, never employs bErith in the sense of
a covenant. The W*NR nq> was probably still simply
the law of the husband, and the idea of a covenant with
932
 COVENANT , COVENANT
Yahwk had not yet been formed. T h e covenant with
death, the compact with ShGl (Is. 2815 d ) ,appears to
be an alliance with the powers of the nether world,
implying mutual stipulations. Men who preached the
destruction of Israel and YahwB's independence of the
people, would not be likely to characterize the existing
relation by a term current in necromancy.
(ii. ) Deuferonomist.-Even the transformation of the
Yahwistic and Elohistic narratives of the Horeb-bgrith,
in the reign of Manasseh, by which the promise given
to Moses became a solemnly imposed law (the Decalogue
of J , Ex. 3415-26, and that of E, Ex.2O1-17), and the
judicial decisions of the btYrith book, Ex. 2023-2333, be-
came divine injunctions, does not contemplate au alliance.
I n the law promulgated by Josiah in 621 (not likely to
be found outside of Dt. 12-26 : but see D EUTERONOMY ,
0 5 E ) the word does not occur. But this law was
designated at the outset as a bhith-book ( z I<. 23221).
I t seems to have been intended to take the place of Ex.
20 23 3 The promise to Abraham is strongly emphasised
by the Deuteronomistic writers and enlarged to one given
to Isaac and Jacob as well (Dt.431 712 816 2 K.1323
[Dt.]; cp also Dt. 1 8 3 5 6101623 7 8 81 etc.). At a
time when Juclah was in imminent danger of losing its
heritage, faith took refuge in this divine assurance,
manifesting YahwB's love, and justified by the obedience
of the patriarchs (Dt. 431 1015 Gen. 264 [Dt.]).
One writer of this school declares that Yahwb announced
on Horeb his bsrith consisting of the ten words (Dt.
413 52&), and that this b h i t h was written on tablets
of stone (99) and placed in the ark (see A RK , 15,
3, 9). Another author made the Josianic code the
basis of a covenant concluded in the fields of Moab
(Dt. 29 9 12 14 21 [8 I I etc.] 26 17-19 ; cp the later gloss
291 [2869]). Here the idea of a compact between
Yahw& and Israel involving mutual rights and obliga-
tions is fully developed. Yahwb pledges himself to
make Israel his own people, distinct from, honoured
above all others; Israel declares that it will make
Yahwb its god and obey his commandments. This
conception was subsequently transferred also to the
Horeb-bCrith ; cp Judg. 2 1 3 [Dt.].
(iii. ) Jeremiah and Ezekiel.-Jeremiah does not seem
to have participated in this development. H e used
b h i t h only to designate Josiah's law, which he regarded
as having been given through Moses at the time when
Yahwb brought Israel out of Egypt (11zf: 6810 3413).
I t is evident from the context that n q 2 ma (1110)
indicates not the disannulment of a covmant, but the
breaking of a law by disobedience, the law still remain-
ing in force. Ezekiel, on the other hand, not only
employs n w in the sense of ' l a w ' (2037 : the fetter of
the law,' 447), but also applies it for the first time t o
the conjugal relation of Yahwb and Israel (1685960).
Marriage is here basedonmutual pledges: it is a covenant.
According to Ezekiel's view of history, Yahwb had
entered into such an alliance with Israel in Egypt, but
the people had by a long career of unfaithfulness forced
its dissolution (1659). Yet he hopes that in the future
Yahwb will renew his intimate relations with Israel.
There will be no covenant, however (for Israel's pledge
cannot be trusted ; 1661), but a gracious dispensation of
Yahwb (le&), everlasting (37a6), and full of prosperity
(3425), ushered in by the restoration of the Davidic
rule and the temple-service (3725 26).
(iv. ) Exilic times.-How ardently the next generation
expected that the fallen tent of David would be raised
up again, may be seen in the appendix to Amos ( 9 118 )
and in the more pregnant form given to the promise
z S. 7 16 [E in 2 S. 235 (nky n w ) . Such hopes may
have been awakened by the honour shown to Jehoiachin
by Ami1 Marduk in 561, and may have attached them-
selves to his son SHESHBAZZAR (4.v.). They were
naturally encouraged by the sympathetic tone of Deutero-
Isaiah's message (Is. 40-48). even though this writer
himself knows no other Messiah than Cyrus. With the
933
ieer intercourse between the holy city and the Jews of
he dispersion, possible after the Persian conquest (cp
lech. IO), and the appointment of Sheshbazzar, and
sfter him of Zerubbabel, as governor, the Second Isaiah's
:vangel was brought to Palestine and changed the
:omfortless lamentations of the native population (Lam.
3 ) into songs of redemptive suffering (Is. 42r-4 491-6
504-9 5213-5312), or of future restoration (the Zion
songs in Is. 49-55). I t was felt that by the accession
)f a king of the old dynasty, a living witness would
Lppeai of Yahwe's faithfulness to David (Is. 554 a ) , a
'estorer of the territory once possessed (Is. 554 d Mic.
L E 13 5 I ) , a surety of the promised dispensation of ever-
asting peace (Is. 54 I O 55 3 ) , and that Zion would thus
2ecome again an organised community (oy n*lx), able
.o build up what had fallen into ruins, to attract
.he exiles to their spiritnal home, and to teach the
iations the manner in which Yahwb should be worshipped
,Is. 426 496).
(v. ) Haggai, Zechariah, etc. -The prophecies of
Haggai and Zechariah bear witness to the strength of
:he royalist sentiment at Jerusalem. The hopes of the
fews proved illusory; but in the midst of disappoint-
ment the belief in YahwB's promises lived on. ' Malachi'
felt assured that Yahwb would return, and accounted for
his delay by the sins of the degenerate priestly descend-
ants of the faithful and reverent Levi, to whom Yahwe's
promise (n.12) of life and prosperity Was given (21-9),
and of those who, fascinated by foreign women, had
forgotten the pledge ( n w ) given to the wives of their
youth (214). T h e author or authors of Is. 56-66 also
deplored the marriages with aliens and the survival of
forbidden forms of worship, but saw )he remedy in the
law : the keeping of YahwFs cominandments (n>m)
would render the very eunuch fit for membership in
Israel (564) ; the distinction of Israel lay in that gracious
arrangement ( n m ) by which YahwB's law, proclaimed
by men of the spirit and repeated by a mindful people,
would be its perpetual possession (59 , I ) , .a divine dis-
pensation involving prosperity as a reward of obedience
(61 8). The author of Jer. 30$, however, rises to a far
greater height. I i e looks forward to a new regime
based solely on YahwB's love, which will take the place
of the old and less permanent relation (Jer. 31 31 5 ) .
This work may perhaps be assigned to the time of the
Graeco-Persian war, when the writer confidently looked
for extraordinary proofs of Yahwe's pardoning grace
(see J EREMIAH , ii. 58 7 [iii.] 8 [ii.]).
(vi. ) P.-The conception of the b h i t h as a , grdcious
act on the part of God, by which he binds himself to a
certain course of action in reference to Israel and the
world, implying the bestowal of blessings and the revela-
tion of his will, becomes dominant in the Priestly Code.
T h e bErith or engagement is here carried back to
Abraham and Noah. Beside the Noah-bErith (Gen.
9 1-17) there is no room for an Adam-btith ; beside
the Abrahamic (Gen. 17 ; cp Ex. 224 64), no need of a.
Sinaitic. T h e Noah-bhith secures the stability of earth's.
conditions and of man's life, and the accompanying law
of blood is but a beneficent provision for the preservations
of the race: the Abrahamic guarantees to Israel the
land of Palestine and a large populatidn, and t h e
command of circumcision implies only a distinction
conferred upon this people from which all further favours
flow. T h e sign in the sky and the sign in the body are
constant reminders to the deity of these merciful engage-
ments. By the use of '3 pj and '3 pp ( ' establish,'
occasionally ' maintain ') instead of '2 n i j the nature of
the bErith as a gift, a divine institution, is emphasised.
Though the word has thus become a religions terminus
technicus in this code, it still occurs with the sense
simply of commandment, Ex. 3116 (the law of the
sabbath), Lev. 246.(the ordinance of the shew-bread),
Lev. 213 (the injunction concerning salt), or of promise,
Nu. 25 I=$ (the assurance td Phinehas of an everlasting
priesthood in his line).
934
 COVENANT
(vii.) Laler w~iters.-The author of Jer. 50 f. (see
J EREMIAH , ii. $5 7, 8 [iii.]) refers to the Abrahamic dis-
pensation in the spirit of the Priestly Writer (see that
vividly expressed passage on the return of the men of
Israel and Judah, Jer. 50s) ; and Jer. 1421 reflects the
same conception. Ps. 8929 105810 10645 1 1 1 5 also
show the influence of this idea.
On the other hand, in Ps. 25 IO 14 13212, n y , is only
a synonym of nny, and in 4418 5016 7810 of niin. I n
Ps. 505, n x ky w m mi3, ' those who pledge their troth
to me by sacrifice,' are graciously told that Yahwii will
not demand excessive offerings,2 and in 78 I O the men of
the Mosaic period are charged with not being faithful to
the pledge given to YahwB. Besides the Abrahamic
dispensation ( I Ch. 161s 2 Ch. 614 Neh. 1s 9 8 3 ~ the )~
Chronicler particularly emphasises the engagement made
with David ( z Ch. 13s 217), but also uses bErith of a
pledge in general ( z Ch. 2910 3432 Neh. 1329). T h e
Prayer of Jeremiah (Jer. 3216.44) is quite after the
fashion of the Chronicler ; in 3240 the author has in
mind 31 3 3 , but interprets the bdrith vaguely as a promise
that YahwA will not cease to show mercy to Israel.
T h e author of Ecclesiasticus (circn zoo) introduces for
the first time an Adam-bErith as an everlasting dispensa-
tion (1712), is led by his biographical interest to mention
severally the divine promises to Noah (4418),Abraham
(v. 1 9 J ) , Isaac (v. z z ) , Jacob (v. 2 3 ) , Aaron (457 IS).
Phinehas (v.2 3 J ) , and David (v. 25 4711),and employs
the term in the sense of law (2423 45 5). and of covenant
(14 12, based on Is. 28 15,hut 5iHeunderstood figuratively;
cp Wisd. 116). The thought of Ecclus. 45 15 (CY $pLepais
odpauoD, nmo v y 3 ) 25, is further developed in Jer. 3314.26
(wanting in BBKA,hut translated by Theodot.; see
J EREMIAH , § 11); the divine arrangements as respects
the house of Levi and the house of David are as inviol-
able as the divine arrangements in nature, the laws of
day and night, of heaven and earth. Deutero-Zechariah
(Zech. 9-14-after 198 B.C.; see Z ECHARIAH , ii. § 5)
promises deliverance to the Jews of the dispersion on
the ground of the faithful observance of the sacrificial
cult at the sanctuary by which Israel continually pledges
its troth to Yahwii ( i n v 018, 'because of thy pledge-
blood' ; 911: cpPs. 50s). Dan. 9 4 ( 1 6 4 ~ . c . ) r e f e r s t o
God's merciful promise to bless his people. The n*i>
n h y , Is. 24s (6. 128 B. C 3 )is most naturallyunderstood in
the light of Ecclus. 1712, where the Adam-bsrith also
involves the revelation of God's laws and judgments.
In I Macc. 250 n3'nn.v n w may he a designation of
the holy nation, the theocracy, whilst 410 probably
refers to the promise to the patriarchs, as 254 does
to that to Phinehas. I n Ps. Sol. 105, the law
appears as a testimony of the eternal dispensation
established with the Fathers (919). The author of
Izlbilzes quotes (616) from Gen. 91zJ and (1519) from
Gen. 177, but in his independent use of the term shows
no trace of the conception prevailing in the Priestly
Code. H e introduces the Noah-bkith as a pledge
given by the patriarch (the original seems to have read
''1 9195 &ry n w nm), 610, which is renewed by the
people every year through observance of the feast of
weeks (617), and the Sinai-bErith as a pledge which
Moses takes from the people (611); he employs the
word as a synonym of ' law,' ' statute ' (1IO 15 34 24 11
30 ZI), and possibly uses it also in the sense of ' theocracy'
( 6 3 5 ) , where the feasts of the Jewish communityare con-
trasted with those of the Gentiles. ' Arbiter testamenti
illius ( T ~ 8raO?jqs
S a d d p ~ l r i s v s )Assumption
, of Moses
[Charles] 1 1 4 , seems to be a translation of inqj n$$n(cp
Job 933), and represents Moses, not as a ihird party
effecting an agreement between God and his people, but
1 Read with Co.., n rlTh. il and insert '2 before n?B. 'Come let
. : I
ns join oursqlves (anew) to YahwS, for a lasting bVfifh cannot
be forgotten.
2 Cheyne however, takes Ps.50 to have been written as
a n expressidn of non-sacrificial religion.
3 Following Duhm. But cp I S A IA H, ii., 0 13.
935
COVENANT
is the preacher proclaiming his law (cp Amos 510 Prov.
25 12 etc. ). This is to be inferred already from the suffix
-it is G o d s bErith-and it is distinctly stated in 311 ;
i the commandments in respect of which he was to us a
nediator '-Le., which he was the means of revealing to
is (cp 27). T h e Abraham-bErith is mentioned in 1 2
3 IO 4 1.f: Enoch 60 6 is a fragment of a lost Apocalypse
,f N o a h ; it presents the Noah-bsrith as the all-
sufficient blessing of the elect.
(i.) GospeZs.-Lk. 172, which refers to C-od's promise
:o Abraham, would seem to have belonged originally to
a- Jewish Apocalypse of Zechariah current
7. NT. among the Baptist's disciples. Jesus him-
self does not seem to have used the term in any
iense. The thought of a new dispensation, so attrac-
:ive to his disciples, may not have been foreign to his
3wn mind. If it is not found even where it might
nost naturally be expected, as in &It. 2143, the reason
nay he that his favourite expression, the kingdom of
Sod, was intended to convey a similar idea. His
"ords at the paschal table have evidently undergone
iuccessive modifications and expansions ; and it is
iifficult not to trace Pauline influences. At any rate
ihe declaration, ' This is the new G r a O l j K r ) in my blood '
11 Cor. 11 25 Lk. 2'220), seems to be an expansion of the
sarlier, ' T h i s is my blood of the 8 r a O ? j K v ' (Mt.2628
Mk. 1424). It is not inconceivable that Jesus actually
;aid YS~Jn i l!ia, meaning thereby ' This is the blood in
which I pledge my loyalty' (cp Ps. 505 Zech. 9 T I ) . But
the Greek translation suggests an Aram. .vn?p3 1 3 1 ]*in,
in which the last word is likely to be an explanatory
addition by a later hand, the original utterance being
simply ' This (is) my blood.'
(ii.) PnuL -In Gal. 3 1 5 8 Paul compares God's
assurance to Abraham with a man's testament (draO?fKv),
which cannot lose its validity by any arrangement sub-
sequent to his death, and in addition seeks a proof of
:he inferiority of the law in the fact that it was given not
3irectly by God himself, but through angels and a
human agent ( p ~ f ~ h p , as in Assump. Mos. 114 3 12).
used
In 424 he contrasts the present Jewish common-
wealth ($ vDv 'IEpouuaX?jp), deriving its existence as a
theocracy (6raO?jKv) from the legislation on Sinai with
the heavenly society ($ dvw 'I~pouuah?jp) from which by
spirit-birth the new theocracy derives its life (cp Heb.
1222). The new form of government (c?raO?jxq),accord-
ing to Paul, was possible only through the death of
Jesus abolishing the authority of the Law (hence the
change to .?v TG .?p$ a t p a n , 'through my blood,'
I Cor. 1125), and, as opposed to the maintenance of
social order by enforced obedience to external statutes,
consisted in a free, love-prompted surrender of life to
the divine spirit's guidance (zCor. 36). The idea of a
special arrangement ( & a O ? j ~ v )still , in the future, by
which all Israel is to be saved (Rom. 1126f.), does not
introduce a foreign element into Paul's conception of
the spiritual theocracy (for it implies only deliverance
from sin), but is a concession to particularism, out of
harmony with his general attitude, and due to his
patriotic feelings (Rom. 9 8 ) . Paul also uses the word
as a designation of the OT ( 2 Cor. 3 14).
(iii. ) Other writers. -In the epistle to the Hebrews,
the Abrahamic dispensation yields to that of Melchizedek.
Abraham is introduced only as an example of patient
reliance upon God's promises SI^), and as a repre-
sentative of a priestly order inferior to that of Mel-
chizedelc (74 8 ) ; Jer. 31 31 8 is recognised as a descrip-
tion of the often promised new constitution (8ia8+q
8 8 8 1016); but it is argued that, as a man's testament
( 6 r a O ? j K v ) IS not valid until after his death (916J),
and as consequently the Mosaic constitution possessed
no validity until a death had taken place (that of the
sacrificial animal), so the better Christian dispensa-
tion could not be ushered in except by the death of
Jesus (915 18 8) ; this departure of Jesus is, besides,
regarded as necessary in order that he might be a
936