SPIRITUAL GIFTS
SPIRITUAL GIFTS
CONTENTS
Definition (5 I). Speaking with tongues : what? (0 8).
g+uea :,what? (B 2). Tongues not foreign languages (5 9).
elimitation of field (5 3). Acts 2 1-13and Mk. lfi17 (%IO).
Classification (g 4). Tongues not archaic expressions (5 11).
Charisms other than that of :p:ech (5 5). Not figurative (8 12).
'Wisdom' and 'knowledge ; exhorting' Tongue, the bodily organ (0 13).
(S 6). Tongue= tongue-speech (F,
.. 14.).
' Prophecy ' (0 7).
'Spiritual Gifts' is a comprehensive name for all
those extraordinary and often directly miraculous powers
1. De~nition. df which we learn; chiefly from-1 Cor.
124-11 28-30 Rom. 123-8, that they were
possessed by many Christians of the apostolic age, and,
according to Paul, had their origin in a specific opera-
tion of the Holy Spirit, which has for its object the
profit of the chnrch.
When in T Cor. 12 6 the ' workings ' (2uapyjpaTa) are assigned
to God or in v. 5 the 'ministrations' ( S m c o v i a r ) brought into
conneclon with Christ, we are not to see in this any real
departure from the regular attribution of the spiritual gifts to
the Holy Ghost. The phrase i n n 5-'diversities of ministrations
hut thesame Lord,' is simply another expression ofthe purpose for
which the gifts are given-the common good of the church ; for
he who serves the church serves Christ who is the Lord of the
church, or, according to another way of putting it, who is the
soul of the church which is his body (12 1.3).The phrase in 4). 6
on the other band-' diversities of workings but the same God '-
is appropriate in so far as by the 'workings ' in question we are
to understand according to v. IO workings of powers,' or of
miracles (2mpjpam Suva'pcov), of which one most readily
thinks of Go as the author. They are nevertheless attributed
precisely in the next verse(7~.TI) to the Holy Spirit, a conclusive
roof that no real distinction ought to be drawn here between
xim and God as the author of these workings.
The word charisma in this connection is plainly used
in a narrow technical sense. ( u ) That the thought of
the grace of God as being the source
2. Literal from which the bestowal of a charisma
ofmeaning
Xhprow comes is still very vividly realised is shown
by Rom. 126 : 'having gifts (charisms),
differing according to the grace that was given to us '
(E?OYTES Xapiupra KUT& T?V Xripiv rhv 6oOeiuav +pZv
Giag5opa).
In the only N T passage where cLarisirra &&bop) is coupled
with the adjective 'spiritual ( m f v p m d v ) , the technical sense
is, as it happens, absent ; in Rom. 1 I I it does not mean any
special aptitude possessed by Paul but a gift (in the way of
instruction, encouragement, consola;ion, or the like) which he
hopes to he able to confer upon the Romans in the course of his
visit, even if 'spiritual' (rucuparr.6u) expresses the thought
that he himself in turn has received it from the Holy Ghost.
Still further removed from the specified meaning of the word
charisnza as given ahoi-e, though again with a passive applica-
tion (gift that is conferred), are the applications of it which we
find in Rom. 6 23 (eternal life the charisma, not of the Holy
Ghost but of God), in 11 29 (the charismata of God=the favours
bestowed by God upon his people Israel as enumerated in
9.+J), in zCor. 1 TI (without TOG QeoG : the charisma of Paul's
deliverance from deadly danger) ; so also in Rom. 5 I 5J where
the justification of sinful man is the charismaof God and Christ.
The word denotes the whole aggregate of God's benevolent
operation in the universe in the single passage outside of the
NT, and the Church Fathers in which it is known to occur
(Philo Legis aZZegor. 3 24 end 1103 ed. Mangey : 'All things
in the' universe, and the n n i & s e itself, are the donation and
benefaction and gi/t of God (Sop& xa; &epysuL N a i xcipbufia
@a06 r&ra'vra Sua ;v 1c6upyrai airbc Q ~ 6 u p o sduriv).
(6) Very sharply distinguished from these uses is the
technical sense in which the word is employed, whether
in the pl. (Rom. 126 I Cor. 1 2 4 3 1 ; and, with the
addition of ' healings ' [lapdrwv], 12 g 28 30). or in the.
sing. with a negative (I 7 : 'so that ye come behind in
no charisma'), or in a distributive sense ( I Pet. 410:
' according as each has received a charisma '; cp I Cor.
7 7 : 'each man hath his own charisma from God').
I n just the same way, in the technical sense, the dis-
tributive singular of 'grace' (Xdpis) stands in connection
with the plural 'gifts' (66para),in Eph. 4 7 J : ' unto each
one of us was the grace given according to the measure
of the gift (6wpeBs) of Christ. Wherefore he saith . . .
He gave gifts (66para) unto men.' Not till we reach
the Pastoral Epistles do we find the sing. charism
(x&pirpa), used comprehensively to denote all the
4755
SPIRITUAL GIFTS
Interpretation of tongue-speech (5 15).
Diffusion and cessation of tongue-speech
and prophecy charisms ($3 16).
Popular view of spiritual charisms (5 17).
Discerning of spirits (5 18).
Paul's view of spiritual charisms (0 19).
Conclusion (F, 20).
Literature ($ 21).
aptitudes which Timothy, as a bearer of ecclesiastical
office, possesses, or ought to possess: 'neglect not
the charism that is in thee' ( I Tim. 414) ; ' I put thee
in remembrance that thou stir up the charism of God
which is in thee ' ( 2 Tim. 1 6 ) .
( c ) For us the technical meaning of the word is first
met with in Paul. At the same time, we may at least
be certain that Paul did not invent it when he was com-
posing his epistles : for he employs it in his writings
without any explanation, as referring to a matter quite
well known. There remains a possibility that he may
have coined the expression, in the course of his observa-
tions of the extraordinary endowments intended by it,
while engaged in his missionary labours. W e may well
venture upon such a conjecture, seeing that the idea of
grace (charis) is so specially prominent with Paul.
Yet the expression can also have sprung into existence
in the Christian churches without the agency of Paul.
No one of the three leading passages relating to
spiritual gifts in the writings of Paul, as given above
3. Delimits (5 I ), can claim to be a complete
tion of field. account, and it therefore remains un-
certain whether even all three together
make mention of everything which Paul reckoned to this
category. ( a ) Nevertheless the attempt must be
made, with the help of these three principal passages
and other subsidiary ones, to form to ourselves some
conception of the range of the phenomenon in question.
'Prophecy' (rpoq4vrsia) is the only charism that is actually
named in all three passages ; but in effect so also is ' teaching
(6daUK+ia), if we permit ourselves to regard the 'word of
wisdom (A6yos uo@as), and the 'word of knowledge' (A.
~ Y J U B W F ) , of I Cor. 128 taken together as identical with 'teach-
ing,'-a view which is favoured by 1426 ('teaching [ S t S a p j ] ,
co-ordinated with ' revelation, tongue interpretation (aro-
xa'Aul(rr5, XAiTua, I p p ~ p 4 a ] ) , whilst ' in 146 ' knowledge
[ y v t u r r ] a 50 1s found co-ordinated with 'teaching ' (Sdapj)
as well as 'tongues, revelation, prophecy ' (yhGuua6, arora'hv+rr,
rpo+qrsia), so that only the 'word of wisdom' (A' OF 00 rac)
seems to be left as synonym for 'teaching' (8c8axx In t b t h
the leadin5 passages in I Cor. 'gifts of healings' (Xapiupara
iapa'rov), powers ' or ' miracles ' (SVY&;US), and ' diversities of
tongues' ( y d y yhouuiv),occur in addition to the other concepts
already mentioned. Rom. has with the first passage in I Cor.
(125) nothing but 'ministry' (Scarovia) in common, but in that
first passage, as well as in I Cor. 16 15, this word-seems to have
a more extended application than in Kom. 12 7 ; with the second
passage in I Cor. (12 28-30) Rom. has in substance hut one concept
In common-on the assumption, that is to say, that we may
identify the rrpoi'ura'psvop ('he that ruleth ') with him who has
the gift of 'government' (ruf3Cpyuis). Peculiar to the first
passagein I Cor. (124-11)are 'faith,discerning ofspirits'(rri~~rr,
) , ' interpretation of tongues * (ippqvrio
S L ~ K ~ L Ur vCmS, ~ a ' ~ w vand
y h w u u t v ) ; to the second (12 28-30) the concepts 'apostle ' (&A-
umhor), and 'h e l p : ( L ~ r r A ~ p l ( r s r;5 )and to Rom. ' admonishing '
(rapaxar\iuv), 'giving (pfTaSdov's), and 'showing mercy'
(;A€&").
(6) Eph. 411 and Justin, Dial 39, can be adduced
only as secondary authorities. so long as it is with the
apostolic age that we are dealing.
Eph. (on its date see col. 3120, n. 3) noticeably enumerates
offices only, not charisms. Of these Paul had already name!
the 'apostles,' 'prophets,' and 'teachers ' and also the 'pastors
( r o q d v ~ c )if these are to be taken as eq&aleiit to the 'rulers'
( n p o i ' u r a ' ~ s v o ~of) Rom. 12 8. Peculiar to Eph. are the ' evange-
lists' ( e i a y y e A r m a i ) , on whom see MINISTRY,$ 39 a,6. Of
the gifts enumerated by Paul Justin has only 'healing' ( C ~ U L S ) ,
and ' teaching ' (Sdaurahia). What he designates ' understand-
ing' (&EULF), may safely be identified with ' wisdom' (uoqh'a),
and his 'strength' ( I q 4 ~ perhaps ) with 'power' (Sv'vaprp), as
he attributes 'strength'(iuX;s) to Moses (DiuZ. 87). The ne:
elements in his list are 'counsel' (BovAG), 'foreknowledge
(rp6yuours), which answers only in a very limited degree to the
prophecy ' (rpo+qmia) of Paul, and ' fear of God ' (+6f3os BaoP);
Four of h a seven concepts-'understanding (uv'veurr), 'counsel
@WAG), ' strength ' (Lu~v'c),and ' fear of God' (q46goe @e&)-
4756
 SPIRITUAL GIFTS
2. :
ustin has taken direct from Is. 11zf: 65, where, according to
is interpretation ( D i d 87). are enumerated the seven powers
of the Holy Spirit which were all of them to rest upon Jesus
from his baptism onwards, whilst the saints of the O T and
Christians never receive more than one or a few of them. I n Is.
we find brsides the four words alreadygiven ‘wisdom’ (u@ia),
‘knowlbdge ’ (yvimrs), and ‘piety’ (e;uC@;Bba). I t is plainly
with reference to knowledge (yuours), that Justin speaks of
foreknowledge (rppdyvours), for he lays stress upon the argument
that in his time ‘prophetic charisms’ (rrpo+qrr~b x a p i u p a r a )
are still found among Christians, and that thus the O T gift of
prophecy-hy which he understands merely prediction of future
events-has passed over to the followers of Christ (Dial. 82,
begin.).
(c) It will be noticed that in all the enumerations
almost no reference whatever is made to the virtues that
are looked for in every Christian. Even ‘ ministry ’
(8raKovia), ‘ giving’ (pwa8r86vai), ‘ showing mercy’
(QXeBv), are enumerated only on the assumption that
they have risen to a pitch that is not attainable by
every Christian. The extraordinary character, rising
in many cases to the level of the miraculous, which has
been noted in 5 I as the first criterion of charisms in
the technical sense, is thus preserved. All the less
have we any occasion to lay stress on the ‘fear of
God,’ which Justin has merely taken from Isaiah,
or to extend in an analogous way the limits of our
category in the direction in which this would be per-
missible, if one elected to pay heed only to the second
criterion (see 5 I)-that they are attributed to the
agency of the Holy Spirit-and, further, to take it as
one’s guiding principle that according to Paul the whole
new life of the Christian, with all its virtues, is a work
of the Holy Spirit (Gal.5zzf.: love, joy, peace, etc.).
It would therefore be a mistake to accept the limits for
our present concept, as these are laid down by Weinel
(below, fj ZI), who in fact writes not about the ‘ gifts.’
but about the operations, of the Spirit. T o these of
course belongs the ethically good state of the will, treated
of by Weinel (149-161), with all its effects ; it does not
belong to the order of charisms.
( d ) There is still another element included by Weinel
which we for our part must exclude. The receiving of
revelations-apart from the subsequent reporting of
them-or the power to endure martyrdom (or even
ascetic privations) may be traced back to the Holy
Spirit, and may also possess the note of the extra-
ordinary in a very high degree, yet they ought not to
be reckoned to the number of the charisms because they
lack the third criterion-that of utility for the life of the
church.
This criterion must have had very great importance in Paul’a
view; b,r w t only doe, he in I Cor. 127 142-33 make it the
chief goal of his entire d i x u 4 o n of the chariams(a1though he
has been led to the mention of them, not by this thought hut by
that of the unity of the Holy Spirit), hut also in Rom. 126-8 the
same goal is set before him, although the occasion is in like
manner different, namely, the thought of the unity of the church
notwithstanding the diversity of its members. Oneis not entitled
to suppose that the profit of the church is onlyan application of
the charisms which Paul would like to see made, not a consti-
tutive element in the concept itself. So far from that being the
case, this criterion is for the apostle so important, that he would
refuse to reckon to the number of charisms in the technical sense
of which we are now speaking, any phenomenon which yielded
no advantage for the community at large.
( e ) For this reason we must hesitate before including
in the category in question one manifestation which
Paul himself expressly designates by the name of
charisma. In I Cor. 7 6 J he wishes that all were un-
married as he himself is. but does not set this up as a
positive command, ‘because each man hath his own
gift from God, one after this manner and another after
that.’
It would be a mistake to believe that Paul here intends to
contrast a charisma of marriage with a Xripwpa +pamias (as
following 79, we may designate the other side of the corn:
parison); for in this whole section h e regards marriage, and the
intercourse of the sexes in marriage not as a good in itself, hut
only as a preservative against evil’(7z 5 9). Rather must we
take as the antithesis to the X+rupa iyrpa&ar some one or
other of the charisms enumerated in chap. 12. Paul, however,
would hardly have arrived a t such a co-ordination if for his own
personal calling the unmarried condition had not carried with it
a direct and obvious utility for the churches under his care-
153 4757
SPIRITUAL GIFTS
that, namely of leaving him freer for the preaching of the gospel
and pecunia& less dependent on the churches in which freedom
and independence he discerned a great advanta‘ge for the exercise
of his office, and specially for the assertion and establishment of
his authority (r Cor. 7 3zf: 9 126 15-18 z Cor. 117 - 1 2 ) . When
therefore, he speaks of the unmarried condition as a charism h;
will, broadly speaking, he thinking of himself and of those ln a
like position with himself. Otherwise we should have expected
him to class as charisms also other forms of asceticism, such as
abstinence from certain kinds of food, or voluntary poverty; hut
this he never does.
After defining the field our next task must be a
classification of the charisms of so very various kinds.
*. Classification. ( u ) It might seem as if Paul himself
had undertaken it when, in the first
of the three leading passages ( I Cor. 124-6). before
going into details, he sets up these three great
categories-‘ charisms ’ (XapiupaTa), ‘ ministries ’ (&a-
Koviar), and ‘ works ’ (&epy?jpa.ra).
If, however, we decide to take these verses as setting forth a
strict arrangement we shall have to believe that in the detailed
enumeration in m,.’7-riSwhere each charism is traced back to
the Holy Spirit, only the first of the three great categories
has been specifically dealt with, since the second and third of
these-‘ miiiistries’ (6raroviar) and ‘works ’ ( Z v c p p y j p a r a j a r e
brought into connection not ’with the Holy Spirit hut with
Christ or God. This again, however, would not be in accord-
ance dith v. IO, where ‘ works ’ [‘of powers ’] (ivep ’para [dvva’-
yov]),are ,included in this detailed list ; and in Eom. 1 2 7 the
ministries (6raroviai) helong to the charisms (xapiupanz).
Thus ‘charism ’ ‘ministry,’ and ‘work’ (,y+~upa, 8rarovia and
ivCppy?pa) are Anly three different names for all or at least ;any
of these kifts, and they are chosen with consaous reference to
the three modes of divine revelation. The most comprehensive
would seem to be according to 2,. 6, ‘work’ (Zvipyrlpa), (God
worketh all thing: in all) ; according to Kom. 12 6 ‘ charism
(x&ptupa) ; in I Cor. 16 15 ‘ ministry ’ (6rarovia) is used also in
a very comprehensive sense.
( b ) Within the detailed enumeration made in I Cor.
128-10 a classification might seem to be hinted at by
Paul himself, when he uses ‘other’ (6XXy) six times and
‘ different ’ (hdpy) twice ; for ‘ different ’ ( h ~ p o s )may
mean ‘ of another kind,’ whilst ‘ other‘ ((IXXos) signifies
merely ‘ not identical. ’
In that case, however, we should have to subsume under the
fixed confidence or ‘faith’ ( ~ I O T L F v. 9) which is introduced by
the first ‘different’ (&+y), not 4erel;the gift of healing and
the power of working miracles (which would be suitable enough),
but also ‘prophecy’ and ‘discerning of spirits’ (which would not
suit at all). ‘ Other ’ and ‘different ’ are thus used only for the
sake of variety, not with the intention of expressing a
difference.
(c) Any attempt to find a suggested classification in
the omission of the particle ‘and ’ (86) in many instances
also breaks down.
In v. I O the second and third 66 are put in brackets by WH.
If in these two cases the particle is taken as genuine, then each
‘other’ (CLUO) is accompanied by 86, and ‘different’ ( C d p y ) in
both cases is bithont it ; the classification would then be the same
as under (6). If both are deleted, ‘discerning of spirits’ as one
principal division would he separated from ‘ prophecy ’ as another
principal division, although unquestionably the two are not more
widely separated than ‘interpretation of tongues’ from ‘kinds
of tongues‘(l429). Thus we should have to reject the first of
the two 8C and retain the second (so Bern. Weiss.). For this
however, the authorities give not the slightest warrant, for i;
both cases the evidence is almost exactly the same for the re-
tention and also, on the other hand. the same for the deletion.
( d ) ’Thus all that remains for us is to attempt some
sort of classification from the nature of the case. The
points that seem clearest are these : ( I ) to the ’ works
of powers ’ ( P v e p y ? j p a ~8uvOip~wv)
~ of I Cor. 12 IO 28 be-
long the ‘ charisms of healing ’ (Xapiupum i a p d 7 o v ) of
m. g 28 which were invariably regarded as miraculous.
and the ‘ faith ’ (rriuns)of v. 9 since, in 132, it is spoken
of as able to remove mountains. ( 2 )To the ‘ ministry ’
(6raaouia) of Rom. 127 belong certainly the a givings ’
(pcTu8c86var) and showing mercy’ (QXeBv) of 128.
and the ‘helps’ (dVTlh?jp$€lS) of I Cor. 1228. This,
if we take 8ramwia in a narrow sense. In a wider
sense of the word there is a ‘ ministry of the word’
(&aaovla 7017X6you, Acts 64), and in the sense in which
the word appears to be used in I Cor. 1615 other gifts
also might easily be included under it, as Stephanas had
rendered useful service in the guidance of the church at
Corinth as well. Yet ( 3 ) it is better to regard the govern-
ments ’ ( ~ u , % p v $ u w )of I Cor. 1228 as forming an inde-
4758
 SPIRITUAL GIFTS
pendent main division, to which of course the governor’
( a p & u r d p u o s ) of Rom. 128 will belong. Most amply
subdivided (4) is the gift of the ‘ word’ ; ‘word of
wisdom’ (X6yos uo@as), ‘of knowledge’ (hbyos yv&wsws).
the first of them (or both of them) = teaching ’ (br8a-
UKUMU),or, if it is the product of the charism that is
thought of, = ‘doctrine’ (SrSax?)); see § 3 a. Then there
is also the ‘admonish’ (aapaKaX&) of Rom. 128 ; but
also very specially ‘ prophecy ’ (apoq5qreia) together with
‘ discerning of spirits ’ ( ~ ~ K ~ C ~UY EL US~ ~ L C ( ~and
T W Y the
) pretty clearly the feature which would offer a cle‘ar
‘ kinds of tongues ’ ( y Q v qyXwuuGv) with ‘ interpretation
of tongues ’ (ippyuelia yAwuuGv). An apostle (I Cor.
1228) combines the gift of the word with that of direction
and of miracle-working ( z Cor. 1212).
The first three classes call for but little remark by way
of explanation. It has elsewhere been shown from the
sources (see GOSPELS, $ 144; cp also
ap&,Charisms
fromthat below, Q 16) how widespread, down
of the word. to the end of the second century, was
the belief that many Christians
possessed the power of working miracles, and very
specially that of driving out evit spirits. I t is specially
important to observe that the same power is not denied
of those who are not Christians, but only attributed in
their case to the agency of demons. This goes t o show
that some kernel of actual fact in the alleged Occurrences
is undeniable.
We may seek to explain these from natural causes, a method
of explanation that presents no particular difficutty, least of all
111cases of castingout of devils-;.#., hedings of mental disease,
which, however, often enough will have heen only temporary in
their effect. We may further take it that the faith which saw
miracles in those really unrniraculous events will, without dis-
crimination, have attributed to those who produced them per-
formances also of such a nature as would really have been
irreconcilable with the laws of nature. The collection to be
found in Weinel (19-127) shows, however, that the Christian
writers, apart from quite summary accounts, refer, with regard to
the first and second centuries, almost exclusivelyonIytoexorcisms
and attribute miracles of the more pronounced sort to Ireathe;
sorcerers and to the gnostics (who, in holy horrot., are ut on the
same level with the sorcerers). Exceptions are t h e Tegendary
works in which such magical arts, as practised by Simon Magus,
are imitated by Peter or by Peter and Paul with a view to out-
doing them (see SIMONPETER 5 33f.X OF apocryphal Acts of
Apostles, partly of gnostic origh the spirit of which k illus-
trated by some examples in J O H N , SON OF ZBBEDEE,0 Sf,
and in S IM O N PETER, 5 46.
On ‘ministry’(6rarov;a), see DEACON, 5 3 ; on ‘government’
(KVSCPV~ULS) and its development, see MINISTRY, $3 9, and subse-
quent sections.
The various forms of the fourth class, on the other
hand, demand careful and detailed investfgation. Let
us begin with the ‘ word -of wisdom ’
6. ‘Wisdom’
(Xbyos u+as) and ‘word of knowledge’
md (Xbyos Y ~ ~ I U E W Sin) I Cor. 128. It is
‘knowledge*; obvious from the first that the two are
‘exhorting.’ very closely related ; for in 27-26 ‘know’
(~WJUKE L V ) as the verb t o which the substantive
figures
‘I wisdom ’ (uo@fu) corresponds. If, notwithstanding,
the two must be regarded as characteristically distinct
in our leading passage, the difference accordingly is
hardly to be sought in their differing contents, but rather
in the way in which the human spirit appropriates the
same material which is brought before it by each. Now,
according to z Cor. 46 (cp 214), gnissis appears to be
applied to the knowledge of what is perceived in an
ecstatic condition ; for Paul who had never known Jesus
upon earth can only have seen, in the face of Christ, the
splendour of Chd ( 6 6 : ~ is nothing abstract ; cp 2 Cor.
37 Lk. 2 9 Acts 7 5 5 I Tim. 616 Rev. 2123,f), in a vision.
If, now, gnisis appropriates to itself the impression thus
received and casts it into the form of thought, it follows
from this manner of origination that the mental product
will possess the character of what, in the philosophical
theory of knowledge, is called intuition. It will thus
have the note of immediacy as distinguished from that
which has been reached by the discursive method.
For the explanation of what is meant by ‘ wisdom’
(soq%,la) no such direct hint is given ns by Paul. Apart
from passages where the word is used in an un-
4759
SPIRITUAL GIFTS
favourable sense, it always indicates with him the
content, not the manner, of the knowledge. This
circumstance, however, cannot alter anything in the
fact that in our leading passage it is parallel with
gnisis, and here, accordingly, like the other, must mean
R manner of knowing. There is nothing to indicate
that the practical, as distinguished from the theoretical,
is meant. On the other hand, the wisdom of the world,
which is the opposite of that here intended, exhibits
contrast withgnoris as explained above ; it results from
intelligent consideration of things. A wisdom which
figures as gift of the Holy Spirit must naturally be the
consequence of the inspiration of that spirit; but
nevertheless it can in its style and manner display the
note of discursive thought and reflection quite as
cIearIyas gnosis a n display that of vision and intuition.
Holsten seeks to bring out the ContraSt in the following way ;
in B a d we have to look more for gnosis in so far as he visualised
the fundamental conceptiuns of his entire doctrine on the basis
of that imqe of the ascended Jesus which he saw in his vision
near Damascus ; ‘wisdom ’ (TO+) we find more in ApoHos. If
this is correct, the so-called pneumatic interpretation of the OT
which believes itself able to arrive at the hidden sense would
rather fall to the side of ‘wisdom’ (uo+ia), including thekorm in
which it is employed hy Paul in, for example, such passages a5
I Cor. 9 9s104 14zrj: 2 Cor. 313-16 Gal 421-31. Acmrding
to the Epistle of Barnabas, it is true (10z gJ), it appears to be
called gnosis Yet here a vacillation of expression is easily
possible. It must be added, further, that gnosis in Paul, where
I t relates fothe region of practice (I Cor. 8 I 7 .of: and douhtlps
also z Cor. 66X is a much simpler notion. It is easily
conceivable that the application of the word to this region may
have had a different course of development from that which it
bad when regarded as a spiritual gift.
The ‘admonish’ (rrapuKaXeiv) of Rom. 1 2 8 belongs.
entirely to the practical side. Primarily it means not to
comfort but t o exhort. Consolation, however, is not,
excluded ; for the literal meaning is to speak to a person.
I t is presupposed that people are in need, not so much
of instruction as of the effort made, whether gently or
more strenuously, always in a friendly and tactful manner,
to bring them, by spoken word, to a better dispajition
of will or a better frame of spirit.
We should completely misunderstand ‘ prophecy ’
should we suppose its essence to lie in prediction of the
This is not wholly excluded ;
?. propbecp.future.
but it can have had only a very modest
part as compared with more important elements in the
idea. These elements are found in I Cor. 14.
( a ) According to 143 prophecy produces ‘ edification,’
‘ comfort,’ and ‘ consolation ; according to a. 24 5 it
can penetrate so deeply as to lay bare the secrets of the
hearts of strangers and constrain them to confess
that the spirit of God speaking in the prophet has rightly
disclosed what was passing within them. Accordingly,
prophecy would seem to be distinguished from the ‘ word
of wisdom ’ (XSyos uo&as) and the ’ word of knowledge ’
(X5yos yvduews) in this, that it is preaching of a purely
practical kind, often not unlike the addresses at a revival
meeting. Yet, according to vv. 31 and 19, the hearers
also learn (pauA-kw) and are instructed (KarqXEiuBar)
by it. Theoretical elements, therefore, cannot be
wholly absent ; the real distinction as compared with
‘wisdom’ (uo&u) and ‘knowledge’ (yvGu~s)has not
yet emerged.
( 6 ) What is more important to observe is that, accord-
ing to a. 30, it is by a revelation ’ that the prophet is
#
led to speak This feature is in fact so characteristic
that in the enumeration in v. 26 we actuaIly find ‘ revela-
tion’ (daordXv$ts) where, alongside of ‘teaching, tongue,
and iuterpretation of tongues ’ ( ~ L ~ R X yAGuuu, T ~ , and
ippqreia y b u G v ) we should have expected t o find
‘ prophecy‘ (xpoq5l]reia). In v. 6 also, the two pnirs
are clearly so distributed that the first member of the
one ( ’ revelation ’) is, if not similar to, at least analogous
to, the first member of the other (‘ prophecy ’) just as
are the second members of the two pairs (yrGms and
SiSax+). Here accordingly is seen what is the really
essential distinction between prophecy on the one hand,
-2760
 SPIRITUAL GIFTS
and wisdom and knowledge on the other ; it lies in the
suddenness and inunediacy of the revelation from which
prophecy proceeds. For we must assume that a prophet
spoke from the basis of such a revelation even in those
cases where he had received it, not as we find in v. 30,
while the meeting was actually going on, but some time
previously-at home, let us suppose.
(c) On the other hand, prophecy has to be dis-
tinguished equally clearly from the ' speaking with
tongues' with which it stands in such close parallelism.
Whilst that which is spoken in tongue-speech remains
unintelligible until it has been interpreted, the ' prophet '
can be understood by any one (vv. 3f.) because, during
the time of his speaking, he is guided by his 'under-
standing' (voOs ; a. 14). Therefore, also, it is said of
prophecy (v.32) that 'the spirits of the prophets are
subject to the prophets,' whilst those who speak with
tongues are at the moment in the ecstatic condition.
( d ) Taking all these considerations together, we find
that the prophecy spoken of by Paul is entirely similar
to the discourse of the O T prophets. In the O T also
the contents of prophetic discourse are for the most
part of a practical character, yet also informing; the
origin is sought in a sudden revelation ; the manner of
speech of the O T prophets is quite intelligible. This
holds good of the prophetic discourse so long as it
has not, as in the Book of Daniel, or even in Zechariah
or Joel, passed over into the apocalyptic style, but simply
as we find it in the genuine writings of the older prophets,
not as it is described by such authors as Philo and Justin
for whom the O T prophets are men who speak in a
completely ecstatical condition and are mere foretellers of
the future. Perhaps we might even go a step farther
and conjecture that the manner in which the ' prophets '
of the apostolic age were conscious of receiving their
revelations resembled that of the O T prophets who say,
' The Lord spake to me,' and that the contents of such
a revelation, as in the OT, had reference for the most
part to some concrete detail. From what has been said
it will be seen that on the whole the most suitable render-
ing of ' prophecy ' will be ' inspired address ' or ' inspired
preaching. ' On the later stages of Christian
prophecy see M INISTRY , § 38 [also PROPHETIC
L ITERATURE , 30-331; on ' discerning of spirits '
(&a'KplUlS aV€Up$Twv), S e e below, 18.
The discussion of the question of speaking with tongues
has been brought into the state of confusion in which we
I
*,
with
find it by the circumstance that investi-
:gators were determined to take Acts
21-13 as their starting-point, and to find
the pheno- the truth of that narrative confirmed in
menon all circumstances. in other words. SUD-
ported by Paul. The student, however. who is Lot
prepared to give up the genuineness of the principal
Pauline Epistles (as to which cp G ALATIANS , 1-9)is
in duty stringently bound to consider the account of
Paul as the primary one, and discuss it without even a
side glance at Acts, and to reject as unhistorical every-
thing in Acts which does not agree with this account.
Nor will it be permissible to urge that Paul's information
may have been defective; for he himself spoke with
tongues more than they all ( I Cor. 14 18).
( a ) The speaking with tongues was unintelligible
(I Cor. 142 g IT 16)and therefore of no use to the church,
unless an interpretation followed (vv.6 9 17). Paul goes
so far as to say (v. z z ) that in a mixed assemblage of
Christians and non-Christians it has any purpose at all
only for the non-Christians-namely, to be to them a
sign which, in the context, can only be taken as
meaning a mark of displeasure. True, along with this
he concedes that the speaking with tongues has a value
for the speaker himself, for his edification, namely,
because it is a speaking on behalf of God (vu. z 4 17 28).
From the latter circumstance, and particularly from v. z
( # n o man understandeth'), has been drawn the con-
clusion that the speaking with tongues was in quite low
4761
SPIRITUAL GIFTS
tones. Against this, however, has to be set the
comparison of tongue-speech with musical instruments
which give out loud tones, if not individually distinguish-
able, and with a foreign language which is heard but
has not been learned (w. 7-11), as also the statement
that a stranger must regard the tongue-speaker as one
out of his mind (u. 23).
( d ) The explanation of the unintelligibility of snch
speeches must accordingly be sought in this, that
intelligent thought (YO%) had no part in their production
(v. 14). For ' unfruitful ' ( l i ~ a p a o sin ) this connection
must mean not 'receiving no fruit' but 'yielding no
fruit.' Now, the antithesis to ('speaking' X a k i v , or
' praying' ?rpomI;xeu8ar, or ' singing ' ~ ~ X X E L etc. Y, )
'with the understanding' (TC voi") in m.ISf. is 'with
the spirit ' (74 r v e l j p a ~ r )but
, in v. 19 it is ' in a tongue '
(hyh6uug haheiu). ' T o be in the spirit ' ($Y ? r v ~ l j p c t ~ r
e t a r ) , however, is in Rev. 1 I O 42 1 7 3 21 TO the ter7ninus
technicus for the ecstatic state.
Hence the meaning must he that not all tongue-speakers were
in a position to be ahle afterwards to explain their utterances
13 A),and that it is only of the prophets that Paul says
( 7 ~ .
that the spirits speaking through them are well known to he
subject to the will of the prophets and could therefore, when a
new speaker came forward, be silent (v. 32)-although for his
own part Paul enjoins silence (v. 28) also on the speakers with
tongues (on occasions when no interpreter is present). How
ecstasy was regarded is well described by Philo (1 5rof: ed.
Mangey) ; only, he supposes he is describing the condition of
the OT rophets (in the widest sense of the word so as to include
all the 8Tsaints) when he says : ' [he is] a sounding instrument
of God, invisibly struck and played upon by him . . .
The
understanding that is in us goes abroad when the divine spirit
arrives, and returns home again when the spirit departs ; for it is
not right that mortal and immortal should dwell together
(6pyyayou-OcoG Gurw ~ x o h rpou6pevav
, r a i rrAqrr6Fsvov d o p b ~ w s
v r amov ... Gtaid&rar Qv $ p b 6 VOGF r a d S;lv TOG Briou rrvrd-
paros 8$&u, r a r d 61. rilv prravbcraurv ahoG ?rbArv eiuowi<evaL.
B&LF ydp d~Eun 6'qrbv L B a v b o wvoiK+ai).
(c) What the listeners actually heard Paul does not
tell, because it was perfectly well known to his readers.
For us this is unfortunate, since on this point, perhaps
the most important of all, we are thus thrown back
upon conjecture, and many are only too readily inclined
to support their conjectures by reference to Acts21-13.
If, as we ought, we hold strictly by I Cor., we learn
from 1414-17 to distinguish between a ' praying' (apou-
cljxeuBar) and a ' singing of psalms ' ( ~ u h h e r v )whilst ,
the ' blessing' (eLXoyriv), since it occurs in a confirma-
tory clause, is doubtless to be identified with the latter
or with both, as also 'giving thanks' (e1Xaprumb)
with ' blessing' (ebhoyeiv). But what are we to say as
to the nature of these prayers, songs of praise (and
thanksgivings) ? They were unintelligible, and were
spoken in the state of ecstasy; from this we must
conclude that they consisted either of quite disjointed
sounds, cries, sighs, and the like, or, if of actual words
or short sentences, at all events not of connected ones.
A Christian listener, who naturally did not, like the
stranger in n. 23, regard the speaker as insane, must
yet have had the impression that he was speaking in a
dreamlike state.
( d ) We may, further, adduce analogies from earlier
and later times. Whilst the prophets of the best OT
period are clearly distinguished from the speakers with
tongues by the complete intelligibility of their utterances,
the oldest stages of prophecy manifest a strongly
ecstatic character. Cp for example I S. 10 5-12 19 20-24.
These prophets, capable of being brought by music and
sensory stimuli, to dancing and frenzy, stand for their
part in turn quite on the same plane with the pagan
oracle-givers ( f i d v ~ e r s ) . In this connection we can
appropriately adduce the description of such persons
(pdvrers)in Plat0 (Tim., 71e--pb, Zon, 5 3 4 6 4 , accord-
ing to which they need an interpreter; only, this
interpreter here bears the name of prophet. Within
Christianity, Montanistic prophecy shares fully the
ecstatic character of the primitive Christian tongue-
speech. Of Montanus, for example, Epiphanius ( H e r .
484, begin.) has preserved an utterance in which h e
47a
 SPIRITUAL GIFTS
says in the name of God : ' behold the man is as a lyre
and I play over him like a plectron ; the man sleeps and
I wake ; behold, it is the Lord who takes away the hearts
of men, and gives to men a [another] heart : ' (is03 6
dvSpwrros J a e i hdpa ~ d y d@irr.rapac
d juei T A ~ ~ K T ~6O V . tongue-speech itself, and it would be incomprehensible
d v ~ p w a oKorpGsar
s ypyp?~yopO.iGo3 d p i 6 s Punv d t.$iu-
K ~ Y W
rdvwv Kapsias d v S p d ~ w vKai GrGoirs KapGiav dv9phrrocs).
From recent times we may cite the inspired persons of the
Wetterau and elsewhere (1714-1749) ; also the second
stage of Jansenism from 1713 onwards, the Irvingites,
the ' preaching sickness ' and ' reading sickness ' in
Sweden, 1841-1854(see R E SURRECTION, § 36 e ) , many
cases of somnambulism, also the Quakers, and especi-
ally and above all the Camisards in the Cevennes'
(1686.1707) ; not, however, the Jumpers and Shakers.
( e ) The ' kinds of tongues ' (y&g yhwuuOv) of Paul
points emphatically to a manifoldness of tongue-speech
with regard to which we are hardly able to form any
concrete idea. In the ' praying ' (rrppouedxeut'ai), ' sing-
ing' ($dhheiv), ' blessing' ( E I % O ~ E ~ V ) ,of I Cor. 1414-17 ( y h w u u [hake%])~
we have up to the present point become acquainted
with two (or three) different kinds of contents of tongue-
speech; but that by no means exhausts the subject.
We may perhaps think in addition of such contents as :
communication of a vision received, threatening of
judgment, personal confession, and the like. On the
other hand the expression ' kinds ' (ykvg) can also be
taken perhaps as intended to denote differences in the
form of the speeches according as they were composed
of complete but reciprocally disconnected sentences, of
disconnected words, or of single sounds or syllables;
whether they betokened joy or sorrow, delight or terror,
and so forth.
Proceeding now, on the basis of the preceding
- - to a consideration of what is meant by the ported the speaker to an ecstasy. But why not also
-paragraphs,
expression ' speaking with tongues,' the
Tonees
9' first thing to be remarked is that in the
not fonlgn present connection Acts21-13must be set occasion when a communication was received that
'wage s*not provisionally, but definitively.
aside
Nothing is more certain than that iongues ' (yhG~o&) supernatural way with the ability to speak in a foreign
in the case before us must not be translated ' languages. '
(u) Were the case otherwise theexpression ' ( t o speak)
in a tongue' (yhdaq [haheb]) would be quite impos-
sible, although in point of fact it occurs not only in the
mention of a single speaker (I Cor. 142 4 13f: 19 26f: )-
where it might be argued that each individual speaks
only in one language that is foreign to him-but also
in w. g where more than one speaker is in question.
(6) Where unquestionably the languages of foreign
peoples are being spoken of (w.IO$) PFul as it happens
precisely refrains from using ' tongues (yXOuuai) ; the
word he employs is ' voices ' (Gwval), an unmistakable
proof that in this connection ' tongues' (yhOaaar) is
reserved for a different concept, and with these ' voices '
( G w v a f ) the speaking with tongues is only compared,
whilst on the other assumption the two would be
identical.
(c) Paul concedes that the speaking with tongues is
fitted for the private edification of the speaker, and
therefore recommends that this gift should be exercised
in solitude (vz. 41828). But that speaking in foreign
languages should have this result would be indeed
wonderful.
( d ) The interpretation of tongue-speech would not
have any miraculous character at all. and therefore
have no claim to be considered a charism, if it rested
upon acquaintance on the part of the interpreter with
1 C p Hilgenfeld, Glossolalie, 119136 (1850); Goebel, ZiscLr.
fzir hist. TheoC. 1854, pp. 2677322,377-438 ; 1855, pp. gq-~do,327'
425 ; Evanx. h-irchen-ztg. 1837, No. 54-56 61 f: : Hohl,
CvucLslJcke aws . .. ; Oliphant, kLife of?ming,
fming, ~ 8 3 9
1862 ; Joh. Nic. Kahler, Let Irvingisme, 1876(contains examples
of tongue-speeches actually delivered) ; Reich, St.Kr. 1849,
pp. 1g3-242; Fahri, Die newten Enueckungcn in America,
lrZand etc. (1860)' Id. Die Enueckun en auf deutsrhem
Bodm,'1861 ; Delitzdch, 232.Psyrk0lngip,~~316-320 =PI 364-368
(r86r) ; Kerner, Die Sehenn von Preuorst, 1829 and often.
4763
SPIRITUAL GIFTS
the foreign language in question. If, however, we are
to suppose that the interpreter understands the language
in question just as little as the speaker, the interpretation
would be a miracle of precisely the same order as the
how in v. 28 Paul could have supposed the case that
before the beginning of a tongue-speech the speaker
could know that no interpreter for it was present at the
meeting. For the gift of interpretation on such a pre-
supposition as that under discussion could nevertheless
be quite suddenly bestowed on someone immediately
after the tongue-speech had been made.
( e ) That no one in the meeting, apart from snbsequent
interpretation, understands tongue-speech (v. 2 ) would
not hold good of those listeners who understood in a
natural way the foreign language, the temporary use of
which had been bestowed upon the tongue-speaker in a
supernatural way.
v,) The antithesis between ' (speaking) with a tongue '
could not be 'with the understanding'
(voi": so v. 15) or ' by way of revelation,' ' of knowledge,'
' of prophecy,' ' of teaching ' (& d ? r o K a M $ a , i v yvduec,
t v ?rpo@?pip. hv GrSaXi : so v. 6), but must run : ' to
speak in one's mother's tongue.' Of this we find no-
where the faintest trace.
(9) Finally, the main characteristic feature of tongue-
speech-ecstasy-would be completely inexplicable.
Wherefore this, if the whole matter is simply to speak
in a foreign language which one has never learned?
After all, ecstasy is a psychological condition which
must have its psychological explanation. But if this
kind of speaking can really bring ecstasy with it, why
can it alone do so? One might say : the substance of
these speeches was so exceedingly joyful that it trans-
the substance of many speeches held in one's mother-
tongue? W e should therefore have to say : on each
cheered to ecstasy, the speaker was endowed in a
language. In that case, however, the counter question,
Why not in his mother-tongue? would be difficult to
put to silence.
( h ) The latest defender of the view that foreign
languages are intended, Arthur Wright (see below,
§ ZI), does so in fact quite differently.
H e points to 'the little prophets of the Cevennes'(1686-1701)
children of three ears and upwards, who, according to Heatd
(Confemj. Rev., Jan. r886), preached sermons not only in their
mother-tongue, but also in good French, often for three-quarters
of an hour. 'There was nothing hystqical or wildly excited
about their manner, only they were insensible to pain and
could not be induced to stop.' T h e explanation given is that
they were merely repeating sermons which they had previously
heard delivered by ,grown-up preachers; their memory was
abnormally stimulated by the excitement of the persecutions.
In like manner, according to Wright, the primitive Christian
tongue-speakers in each case were simply repeating discourses
which previously--of course without iinderstanding them-they
had heard with excited attention, especially in Jerusalem, where
at one of the great feasts, for example, a multitude of unknown
languages could he heard. H e lays stress upon the argument
that 'they who spake with tongues are never said to have given
utterance to distinctly Christian teaching ' and goes on to say :
'Accustomed to the higher tone of St. Paul and his evangelists
the Corinthians found little profit in these Rabbinic exhorta-
tions.' H e thus draws his entire view as to the contents of all
the tongue-speeches from Acts2 I I ('speaking the mighty works
of God '), instead of the notorious overvaluation of tongue-speech
in Corinth asserts the opposite and moreover seems seriously
to believe that all the Corintkan Christians, bond and free
alike, who spoke with tongues had previously at one period or
another been in Jerusalem, and there had excitement and
anguish of so enduring a character that their memory could he
stimulated with regard to them in this abnormal way : and this
too for discourses of which they could not by any means have
had the same impression as the Camisard children just spoken
of that all salvation lay in them for they did not turn to
Jjdaism : at least this is not affirme6 by Wright. H e is equally
silent as to what it was that brought on the ecstatic state at
the repetition of discourses formerly heard. H e speaks ,of the
whole as 'a miracle, not of power, but of providence ; the
latter he sees in 'the choice of time, the preparation of
the speakers beforehand, the selection of suitable words, the
4764
 SPIRITUAL GIFTS
restriction of the gifts to particular persons.’ Finally, he
nevertheless finds himself compelled to add to his words
quoted above, the following, as an explanation of the
ecstasy : ‘ the exciting cause may finally have been not merely
mental tension, hut the direct impulse of the Holy Ghost.’ The
interpretation of the tongue-speeches on the other hand he
accounts for by ‘ a knowledge of the language” where however,
it is the tongue-speaker who is himself the’ interpieter, this
explanation will not serve : for the speaker ‘had no recollection
of what he had said.’ In such a case, then, ‘interpretation’
must mean ‘any utterance made in the vernacular during the
state of ecstasy.’ Wright has heen led to put forward his
hypothesis ‘from a sense of the very serious danger of calling
in question the historical truth of the Acts of the Apostles.’
With the purpose of obviating this danger he does as great
violence to the language of Paul as any of his predecessors.
What is excluded by the words of Paul is exactly
what is meant in Acts21-13: the IZO of 11s spoke
lo. Acts21-13 in the languages of the PGthlans,
and Ildk. l6 17‘ M7?k?texDedients that have been
resorted to are innumerable : ihe friendly address pro-
duced in the foreigners only a homelike feeling ; or they
interpreted the disconnected sounds of the actual tongue-
speaking described in I Cor. in each case as utterances
of their own language; or the 120 spoke a single
language, a new one miraculously intelligible to all.
whether that of Paradise or the future language of
heaven ; or they spoke not Aramaic but Hebrew, and
in this the foreigners, who all of them were Jews or
Proselytes, recognised the language of worship to which
they were accustomed at home ; or the 120 spoke only
a few languages, not wholly unknown to them but only
unfamiliar, such as Arabic, colloquial Greek, colloquial
Latin; or those who spoke were not by any means
only the 120 but all the foreigners who were present
with them. This and all the like is strictly excluded
by the thrice repeated statement (m. 6 8 11) that every
man of the foreigners heard the IZO speaking in his
own mother-tongue.
(6) The only theory still left open would seem to be
that of a miracle of hearing instead of a miracle of
speaking. Yet neither does such a supposition hit the
meaning of the author ; for according to what he says
the foreign languages were not only heard but also
spoken. The words of v . 4 : ‘ they began to speak
with other tongues’ (&&pars yXduuurs), receive their
interpretation precisely in the statement ‘ we hear them
speak in our mother-tongue ’ (Tak + J ~ E T . ! ~ U Cyhduuats.
S article, for this would affirm that they had come for the feast to
v. 1 1 ; ‘each in his mother-speech,‘ ZKUUTOS ~i
iSip
SraXPuy, m. 6 8).
I t is possible to suppose a miracle of hearing, therefore, only
in the sense of ascribing to the author a confusion of such a
miracle with one of speech. But why should it have been pne-
cisely a miracle of hearing? If it occurred in the ears or rather
in the minds of the hearers there is no answer to the question
wherefore it was that the d o l y Spirit exercised his miraculous
influence precisely in this quarter, whilst it is not onlysaid (v. 4),
but is also appropriate to the situation, that it was on the
speakers that he wrought. According to others the miracle, in
becoming a miracle of hearing, happened during the transmis-
sion from the mouth of the speaker to the ear of the hearer.
The Holy Spirit ‘interpreted the words during their passage
through the air, so as to present them to the ears of the numerous
listeners, to each in his native tongue. Here one can only ask
in increased surprise why it is precisely the Holy Ghost that is
named as the author of a miracle which is accomplished in no
human being hut in a dead object.
(c) Another question : Wherefore the ‘ tongues as of
fire ’ (yX&uuac &mi wup6s ) in v. 3 1 In this view that
a miracle of hearing is intended, they are left wholly
ont of account. Other interpreters have, in view of
what is said of the tongues, supposed that according to
Acts the miracle was one wrought on the organs of speech.
Since ‘tongue’ in v. 3 denotes the organ of speech this seemed
to be the case also in v. 4 ; the meaning would therefore be:
they received in their mouths new tongues and therewith spoke
a new speech. Here, however, not only does one miss all
possibility of conceiving the nature of what happened, so that
one is compelled to describe the suggestion of it as simply
fantastical ; the idea further is not in the least indicated by the
words. The ‘ tongues as of fire ’ of D. 3 have nothing to do with
the ‘ other tongues ’ of v. 4 ; for the tongues of fire do not enter
:he mouth hut rest upon the head. Such remains the meaning
even if the reading ‘ rested’ (ird6’ruw : sing.) is adopted ; for
4765
SPIRITUAL GIFTS
here the subject can only be ‘fire,’ the only other subject which
is grammatically possible, the ‘sound ’ (?j~os) of v. 2 being ex-
cluded by the nature of the case. Perhaps the pl. ( 8 K a O r u a v ) is
nevertheless to be read, as in H*D sah. cop. pesh.
( d ) These tongues of fire, however, remain out of
account also in the interpretation that a miracle of
speech is intended in so far as that interpretation has
been set forth undrr ( u ) . Since, however, they cannot
by any means be regarded as of subordinate importance
they urgently call for some explanation. This has in
part been given already (see M I N I S T R Y , 5 21 c). The
event of Pentecost is there represented as a parallel to
the giving of the Law on Sinai. T o this parallel belongs
also the loud noise from heaven with which the scene is
opened in a. 2. In virtue of this very circumstance,
however, the narrative lies gravely open to the suspicion
that it rests not upon observation of fact but upon the
activity of the imagination.
(e) In what is said about the audience the text has suffered
greatly. ‘ Both Jews and proselytes’ (‘Iou8a;oi r e rrai .ipomj-
Avrar) in v. TI is impossible as a clause in the enumeration ; it
has sense only if taken as in apposition to all the other clauses
together, so that what is mean: IS : ‘and in fact of every nation,
horn Jews and also proselytes. Thus it had its place originally
either after ‘Arabs ’ (”Apa@sr),or on the margin as a gloss, but a
correct one. In order that foreigners should he hearing their
mother-tongue it is not in point of fact enough that horn Jews
should he represented a5 present from foreign countries; pro-
selytes also must he there, to whom the foreign language was
reall a mother-tongue in the full and proper sense of the word.
(A Against this, however, there is what we find in v. 5, where
all the hearers are called ‘Jews dwFlling in Jerusalem’ (cis
Iepovcahqp xararroirvrcr ’Io~8a;ot). Jews ’ in fact is wanting
in N ; hut even so it is improbable that all these strangers in
e ~ ) ; it would he
Jerusalem had their residence ( r a r o ~ ~ o 6 u rthere
much easier to suppose that they were there only as visitors at
the feast. The circumstance also that ‘dwelling’ ( K a T O r K O ~ v 7 c S )
in C pesh. cop. comes hefore instead of after ‘in Jerusalem,’
and ‘Jews’ in E before instead of after ‘dwelling ’ can be held
as indicating that both words were originally a gloss, and in
this case a wrong one. If so it would have to he attributed to
the desire to produce harmony with 7’. 14 : ‘Jews and dwellers
at Jerusalem (&&prs ’Iov8a;or rcai 0; K a r O r K o ~ V R S‘IcpouuaA&).
Yet see below i end.
(x)For the’sime reason ‘ sojourners ’ (0;&r8qi.~oirure~) before
’ Romans ’ (‘Po,~a;oi)in v. IO is open to the suspicion of being a
gloss if it means Roman citizens who were settled in Jerusalem.
Should it he intended however merely to indicate that they were
there on a passing vikt the eipression will fitly apply not only
to Romans hut also equally well to all other nationalities, and
therefore would have had its right place before ‘Parthians’
(IIdptJor : v. 9). That Roman citizens who were settled in Rome
(not in the province) should he intended is excluded by the
Jerusalem in a body.
(h) Finally, ‘ Judaea’ (‘IpySaiav) in v. g between ‘Meso-
potamia’ and ‘ Ca padocia 1s very surprising [cp GEOGRAPHY
S 26, end]. That yews understood the speakers really did no:
need to he said. Already in Tertullian and (once) in Augustine
we read Armenia; in Jerome Syria. Others have conjectured
Idumrea, India, Ionia, Bithynia, Cilicia, Lydia, and even the N.
Syrian kingdom of Yaudi with which we are acquainted from
the inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser Lcp UZZIAH,5 71.
(i) In other passages (1046, 1 9 6 ) Acts mentions
tongue-speech without the idea of a speaking in foreign
languages and without the addition of ’ other ’ (2rCpars)
to ‘tongues ’ (yXduuars), so that there is no reason for
doubting that the same thing is intended as that which
we find in Paul. Now, this cannot by any means lead
to our finding ourselves compelled, at the cost of what-
ever violence to the words, to find the same view of the
matter also in Acts 2 ; but it does doubtless tend to
raise the question whether perhaps Acts 2 also may not
depend on an underlying source which spoke of tongue-
speech as fittingly as did those which have been used in
1046 1 9 6 . The same idea is suggested also by the
remark of Peter in 1047 that Cornelius and his house
‘ have received the Holy Ghost as well as we ’ (cp 1115,
17). Further it has long ago been remarked that the
reproach of drunkenness in 213, if the languages of
foreign nations were what was being heard, would by
no means have been appropriate, and that the speech of
Peter in 2 14-36 has no relation to hearers from foreign
parts or to any miracle of this description, but explains
the event by the prophecy in Joel ( 3 1 - 5 ) as to the out-
pouring of the Holy Spirit with prophetic specches,
47%
 SPIRITUAL GIFTS
visions, and dreams (216-18). Of the various attempts
at separation of sources (see ACTS, 5 11) the simplest
and therefore the most probable is that which holds the
source to have contained v. 4 (without ‘ other,’ ~ T C ~ U L S )
followed immediately by vv. I Z ~ : ; in fact the conjecture
has been hazarded that 431 presents only another
account of the same event.
I t would also be conceivable that a fragment of the source ‘2
PCEF
reserved likewise in the words ‘Jews dwelling in Jerusalem
‘Ieppavuah+p r a r O r K O ~ v T f 5 ‘Iov8a;or) in 2 5. The source in
that case will have mentioned not foreigners but only men of
erusnlem as witnesses of the occurrence, and it would justly
6, come a question whether the event occurred a t Pentecost (see
MINISTRY, 0 21 c, 4. Yet by its whole structure the sentencq
is fitted to describe a speech-wonder. Should ‘Jews dwelling
then not be a gloss (see above,f), we should have to suppose
that the redactor had very unskilfully retained these words
from his source.
( R ) The occasion for bringing in the idea of the
giving of the law at Sinai, and thereby completely alter-
ing the character of the narrative, can perhaps be looked
for in the increasing importance which gradually had
come to be attached to the event of Pentecost as marking
the presumed moment of foundation of the church
(against this see MINISTRY, 5 21, b, d ) . Yet subsidiary
circumstances can also have contributed to the same
result. One such can be sought for in the passage of
Joel cited in Acts 219 in so far as it speaks of ‘ wonders
in the heavens above and signs on the earth beneath,’
and of ‘fire,’even if rhis be associated there with ‘blood’
and ‘vapour of smoke.’ A still more obvious sugges-
tion is that the occasion may have been furnished by a
misunderstanding of I Cor. 1421 for which Paul himself
is responsible.
14 21 Paul cites Is. 28 11.f as evidence of the unin-
and uselessness of tongue-speeches without observing
that in Isaiah in the case of the Assyrians by whom God is
about to speak to the people of Israel it is not the language
spoken by them that matters but only the sword by which they
are to destroy Israel. Pant, moreover, contrary alike to M T and
the LXX, makes of the whole a divine utterance, and introduces
the words ‘ saith the Lord ’ (A+ r6pros) at the end, changes the
preterite of the last verb (‘they would not hear ’) into a future,
and adds, ‘ not even thus ’ (066’ o h w s ) . By this means and by
the freely chosen composite verb ‘will they give heed’ ( & Q K o ~ -
uovrai) he has correctly reproduced one solitary feature of M T
and the LXX. I n the interests of his parallel with tongue-speech
what he ought to have taken from the O T passage ?as : ‘one will
not be able to understand the men of foreign speech. Paul, how-
ever, actually says-quite unsuitably for the purpose he has in
hand-in real if not in verbal agreement with fsaiah (‘they would
not hear ’) : ‘one will not give heed to them. Yet it is very in-
telligible that a superficial reader could draw from the entire
citation in Paul nothing further than that the speakers with
tongues had spoken in the languages of foreign peoples.
(I) As Mk. 169-20 is entirely derived from the N T
literature, including Acts (see R ESURRECTION - N AR -
RATIVES, 5 8 6, C), there need be no hesitating in
interpreting the ‘ they shall speak with new tongues’
(yh6uuats XaXijuouucv K U W U ~ S of
) v. 17 simply as meaning
‘ they shall speak in languages’ previously unknown to the
speakers, ‘new’( K U W U ~ Sthus
) being substituted for greater
clearness for the ’other’(d.rr!puts)ofActs24. It is quiteim-
probable that an independent tradition lies before us here.
Interesting but not indispensable is the conjecture of Michel;
sen (Hct Emngelie aaar Marcus 29) by which ‘new
is made to disappear. WH has befoie ‘will lift up serpents’
(&$err &poiturv) in brackets the additional words ‘and in their
hands’ ( i d I v ra;c x q x ~ i v ) . Out of this ‘and in their’ ( K a t ;v
T Q ~ or ) rather out of the contracted form ( ~ d v Tais) arose ‘ new’
( K Q c V a k ) and then ‘hands ’ ( p p u l u ) fell away. Instead of ‘in’
(Zv), Michelsen further conjectwes that the original text read
‘ if‘ (;a”), and writes ‘lift ’ (+wuw) : ‘ and if they lift up serpents
with their hands’ ( r l v 7ak c p u b B@is l p w u w r l v Bavdurp6v
r b niwurv a; p i aiwocs ~ ~ r i + $ .
Returning once more to I Cor. 14,the next interpreta-
tion of ‘tongues’ (TXGuuar)that invites our consideration
ll. ,Tongues, is the old Greek one, according to
not = archaiF which are meant archaic expressions no
expr6ssions. longer understood among the people,
or, strange and unusual locutions
generally, including new coinages. On this head see
especially Bleek (below, 5 21), and Heinrici in his own
commentary and in Meyer’s. 4 near the truth.
( 4 ) On this interpretation, however, ‘kinds of tongues’
4767
SPIRITUAL GIFTS
(?r!vt)yXwuuGv) can hardly be distinguished. ( 6 ) The
sing. ‘ speak in a tongue ‘ (yX3uuy X a X e b ) or ‘ pray in
a tongue’ (yX6uuy rpouebXeu8at) can in this view, as
Heinrici himself says, mean no more than the utterance
of a shout of praise or the heaving of a sigh. In that
case the question arises as to how a complete prayer of
such a kind as to require an interpreter can be produced
(14 14) and why Paul should be indisposed to allow more
than two or three such ‘ speeches ’ (v.27). each of which
wonld occupy a minute. ( c ) Even a stringing
together of such expressions, for which, according to
Heinrici, the plural ‘ speak with tongues ‘ (yh3uuats
XaAe?v) is employed, can have resulted in no speeches of
such length as to render regulations necessary for their
restriction in this respect ; on the other hand Paul gives
not the slightest hint at discourses in which such
‘ tongues ’ were a characteristic feature, but which on the
whole consisted of intelligible words and therefore could
extend to considerable length. Heinrici infers dis-
courses of this kind only from v. 19. The statement
here made, however, would he quite ineffective if its
meaning was : I had rather deliver five discourses with
my understanding than ten thousand discourses in which
archaic expressions occur. It becomes effective only if
the meaning is (as in EV) : ‘ I had rather speak five
words ... than ten thousand words.’ (4
the Spirit should have inspired precisely expressions of
this sort, and how the employment of them could have
served for private edification (vv.4 18f. 28) remains wholly
obscure. ( e ) For interpretation of this kind of
‘speech’ what is needed is not the gift of the Holy
Spirit, but philological knowledge. (f)But above
all we must ask, How is to be explained the ecstasy
that accompanies the use of such out-of-the-way expres-
sions? In short, whilst the interpretation of ‘ tongues’
a s meaning speeches in foreign languages still allowed
the supernatural character of the occurrence to remain,
that which takes them to mean mere rare expressions is
simply a means of eliminating that character along with
the ecstasy. Heinrici says (in Meyer : I 362=
(s) 378) expressly that the outsiders alluded to in 1423
could have taken the speakers with tongues to be men
possessed, because they confounded their condition with
that of the Pythia and others who really spoke in
ecstasy.
Beyschlag (below, 5 21) accepts the speaking in
ecstasy, and in fact actually proposes to explain the ex-
12. Tongues pression ‘ speaking with tongues ’ by
not meta- means of it, referring for the expression
phorical. (though not for the thing) to Acts23.
H e holds that the tongnes of fire are an
echo of the fact that the tongues of speakers were
actually moved with fiery eloquence. This figurative
way of speaking about a tongue of fire is the origin of
the name (yXDuuu). The pl. ‘tongues’ is to be
explained, he thinks, even in cases where a single
speaker is in question, by the circumstance that such a
tongue of fire was regarded as having been bestowed
anew on each occasion of its exercise. The oldest ex-
pression accordingly was (he thinks) ‘to speak with
other (or new) tongues’ (Irkpars [or ~ a t v a R ]yX3uuars
XaXcTu) ; the simpler ‘ speak with tongues ’ (yXluuurs
XaXeiv) is merely an abbreviation of this. In abbrevia-
tion, however, it has to be replied, it is not usual to drop
precisely the most important part of the expression ; the
correct abbreviation must have been I to speak with
other (or new) ’ ( C T C ~ U L S [or ~ a r v a i s ]XaXfiv). The im-
possibility of this whole view of Beyschlag’s is clearly
exhibited, however, in I Cor. 14 26. Along with a psalm,
a teaching, a revelation, and interpretation, a tongue of
fire cannot fittingly be enumerated as a thing which one
who takes part in a religious meeting has; for in the
connection ‘ has (i‘xer) means ‘ has to contribute.’ I n
more points than one Beyschlag nevertheless comes very
Above all, Beyschlag has rightly recognised that the
4768
 SPIRITUAL GIFTS
literal sense-the bodily member within the mouth-is
13. The tongne 1.0be taken as the fundamental mean-
ing of ‘ tongue.’
as a bodily ( u ) The decisive passage for this is
member’ I Cor. 149. In connection with n. 7 3
the sense must be: as the sound of pipe. harp, and
trumpet cannot be rightly understood if they give out
no clear sound, so also what is spoken by you cannot
be understood if you give forth no clear speech with
your tongue.
This is the exact logical course of the comparison : to the
musical instruments which give forth either a clear or an unclear
sound, corresponds as instrument of speech the member in the
mouth. If here by ‘tongue’ w e meant theparticular manner
of speech that is known as ‘speaking wth tongues,’ the
case that an unintelligible speech is gwen conid not for a
moment be suggested as merely a possible case; for according
to Paul this happens in all circumstances. Nor, again, have
we here a new example arallel to that of the musical
instruments, but one draw;, Kom what is observed in ordinary
human speech. We do not reach this till we come to v. rof: ;
and as the application of that example to the Corinthian
speakers with tongues is made in o. 12 by tht expression ‘so
also you ’ (OS- e& irpekh in like manner w e must regard the
Same expression in v. 9 as introducing a n application of the
preceding illustrations drawn from the musical instruments to
the same persons. ‘ Tongue here thus signifies in actual fact
the tongue of the Corinthian speakers, yet neither as producing
the so-called tongue-speeches nor yet as producing ordinary
human speech, hut simply in so far as it is capable of giving
forth alike the (always unintelligible) tongue-speech, and also a
kind of speech parallel to this, still intelligible, in the church
meetings-such speech as prophecy, for example.
(6) Here then we have the origin of the expression
* speak with a tongue.’ If all discourse is e f k t e d by
means of tile human tongue and yet only this particular
kind of speech is named from it, the idea can only be
this, that in the case in question the part it plays is
particularly strong, or even, so far as may be, exclusive.
In excellent agreement with this is the use of the
opposite expression ‘ speak with the understanding ’
{ @ rot XaXeiv). In intelligible speech the ‘under-
standing ’ (VOCE) has a part, indeed so prominent a p a t
that it alone calls for mention ; in the contrasted case
it is not engaged, and thus it might seem as if it were
the tongue alone that produced the speech.
Needless to .say the belief was that in ‘speaking with tongues’
fhe tongue was ;et in motion by the Holy Ghost (ow. z , . I ~ ) ,
just as in intelligible speech i t was set in motion by the ‘nnder-
standing‘ (voirs); but ‘ ( t o speak) with the spirit’ (nufJpan
[Ad&]) was not an appmpriate verbal expression for this,
because it would have applied equally well to prophecy,
widom-speech, knowledge-speech, and so forth. I t is also
quite fitting that the designation of so characteristic a matter
should be chosen with express reference to the impression which
i t produced upon the senses, and in this case it really a p p e d
as if the tongue alone were speaking. True, that the lips, teeth,
pilate, etc., are also engaged. But a designation that is to be
in daily use needs to be short, and here it was enough t o name
the most important organ; and that the tonwe is in popular
belief the most important organ of speech is evident.
( c ) This explanation nevertheless leaves something
still to be desired. The plural ‘speak with tongues ‘
(yhhuuats XaXeiv) is accounted for by it only in cases
where it is used with reference to more speakers than
one ( 1 2 p 1 4 g n 2 2 f : 3 9 ) ; and thus not in 1 4 6 (and
v . 18 according to W H ) , nor yet in v. 51’ 1210, although
here the singular, used of the person speaking, has a
collective sense. Where only one speaker is in question,
the attempt has been made to explain the plural
(yXJuuars)as arising from the idea that in passing from
o n e manner of speech to another the ‘ tongue’ is in
some degree changed; but such an idea is much too
fantastic to have arisen in popular spkech, which never-
theless we must certainly assume to have been the case
with all such expressions as this. And what of cases
in which ‘tongues’ stands alone, without a verb
(121028 138 1 4 2 z ) ?
All the conditions are satisfied only by oneassumption :
‘ t o n-~ u e (yXGuuu,
’. . apart from 149) - . must be rrndered
Tonme= ,‘ tongue-speech,‘-Le., speech which,
to,&e-speech. m the manner described in 5 136,
seems to be produced by the tonRue
alone. This is by no means a departure from t h e
4769
SPIRITUAL GIFTS
literal sense; rather is it simply an instance of the
same transition from the instrument to its product which
is exemplified in ordinary Greek when ‘tongue’(yX&ca)
is used in the sense of ‘language.’ It is necessary
to assume that this transition was effected anew in the
primitive Christian usage in a narrower sphere, for the
reason that all other explanations have been shown to
be unworkable. If ‘tongue’ could mean the language
of a foreign nation, or an archaic individual expression,
1426 would at least be intelligible ; as these meanings
are unpracticable ux should have to render : ‘ when ye
come together, each one hath a psalm, hath a teaching,
hath a revelation, hath a (human) tongue (in his mouth),
hath an interpretation ‘-which clearly is meaningless.
a Tongue ’ must necessarily be something of the same
order as the other things enumerated ; and thus a
definite kind of discourse which is capable of being
delivered in a religious meeting.
S o also v. 6: ‘if I come unto you speaking with tongues,
what shall I profit you, unless I speak to you [we must sup ly :
at the same time] either by way of revelation or of knowlefge,’
and so forth. Similarly too 13 8 : ‘ whether there be prophecies
.. . whether there be tongues . . . whether there be knowledge,,
it shall he done away.’ Indeed in the plural ‘tongues
we now recognise everywhere the different ‘kinds of tongues’
(y&p yAoc&.i)y).
In accordance with the attribution of tongue-speech
to the operation of the Holy Ghost, the interpretation
16. hterpreta- of it also is regarded as a spiritual
( u ) It is in the first place to be
Of
a r k e d that the tongue - speaker
epwches* Z himself, as well as another, can possess
this gift. The first is established by 1413,the second
by the co-ordination in 12 to 1426 ; for as not every one
is capable of giving all the kinds of discourse there
enumerated, the meaning must be: ‘when ye come
together each one hath either a psalm or a teaching
. .In .this sense then,
o r a tongue-speech o r an interpretation. ’
we must interpret w. 2 7 f : also. ‘ I f any
man speaketh in a tongue, let it be by two, or a t the most three
.. . and let one interpret.’ If this interpreter is one of the
tongue-speakers, who expouixds his own tongue-speech, then
what immediately follows will mean : ‘but if he is not an
interpreter’ (& 61 v+ 8 Ircppr)urv~<c);and this seems to he
absolutely necessary, since the sentence closes with ’let him
keep sileiice’(mydnu) whilst if all the tongue-speakers whose
speech had no interpreter at h y d had to keep silence, the
expression ought t o have run : let i&wz keep silence ’ (cry&-
muav). I n that case, however, Paul would on the one hand be
enjoining that of the two, or three, tongue-speeches delivered
oue, or two, should remain uninterpreted, which is directl;
contrary to the principle laid down by him in m. 2-11 16-19
2zJt: a6-and on the other hand he would be excluding inter-
pretation by some other person than the speaker, whilst yet such
interpretation is, acmrding to 1 2 IO 14 26, a spiritual gift. Thus
we must, after all. suppose that Paul, in a somewhat careless
way, thou ht of ‘the person concerned’ as the subject of the
singular ‘fceep silence ’ (ory6bo)l and that we ought to render
(with FV): ‘ if there he no inter reter.’ This too is inexactly
said : let [only] one interpret’ (& Grrpp*Mviro& What Paul
had in his mind perhaps was : ‘ let one a t least interpret.’ The
continuation ‘but if there be no interpreter’ fits this well.
If this view be correct, we learn from the passage
before us that those persons in the church who were in a
position to interpret tongue-speeches were generally
known and thus exercised this function with some
regularity. The possibility was not excluded, indeed.
that some one on some occasion might give an inter-
pretation who had not previously done so. Clearly,
however, Paul is not disposed to rely upon the un-
certain, and therefore he prescribes that if an interpre-
tation is not assured (such doubtless w-illbe the intention
of his wards) the tongue-speech is to be from the
outset suppressed.
( b ) What, next, were the means by which an
individual other than the tongue-speaker became able
to understand the tongue-speech ? If this faculty w-as
a purely supernatural one, our question has no point ;
but the case was assuredly otherwise. With what
degree of precision the interpreter was able to elucidate
1 Similarly, ‘the persons concerned is to he supplied as the
subject of the plurals ~ F & U U W (I Cor. 7 36) and r r q r A 6 p m . w
(zThess. 3 6) as W H q . and Tischendorf read.
4770
 SPIRITUAL GIFTS
the sense of a tongue-speech we cannot tell. The
more one was disposed to rest satisfied with genetal
renderings, the easier was it to supply them. The tone
of the voice, the gestures, the recurrence of particular
words or sounds certainly offered clues. Further help
was gained from observation of the habits of the tongue-
speakers. W e can hardly imagine otherwise than that
their speeches readily assumed a stereotyped character.
If, however, at any time a tongue-speaker brought
forth something unaccustomed, a knowledge of what
experiences he had recently been having would certainly
not be useless towards an understanding of his speech.
(c) It must he expressly noted that the things enumerated in
14 6 alon:, with tongue-speech-revelation,knowledge, prophesp-
ing t e a c h i n g 4 0 nc: constitute the interpretation of tongue-
spekh in some such sense that the meaning will be ‘when I
come unto you speaking with tongues what shall I profit you if
I do not forthwith interpret these tongue-speeches in the form
of revelation’ etc. This misunderstanding is froin the outset
precluded by this that in v . 26 ‘interpretation’ stands in co-
ordination alike dith ‘revelation,’etc., and with ‘tongue. On
the other hand, it is possible that interpretation of tongue-s eech
f
is intended in 21. 15 : ‘ I will pray with the Spirit and will
Pray with the understanding also,’ that is to say &le I repeat
in intelligible language the substance of the prayer I have
originally uttered in ecstasy. This view is recommended by the
fact that, immediately before (v. 13), the tongue-speaker. is
admonished to aim at being able to interpret ha own tongue-
speeches.
On the subject of the diffusion of the tongue-charism
our information is very defective. \
( a ) We are not
,
aware that tongue-speech (and the
16. Spreadand allied charisms) had any considerable
end of ‘ tongue- diffusion within the Jewish-Christian
-speech ’ an!
prophecy
charisms.
area; but neither is there adequate
ground for denying to the Jewish
Christians all aDtitude for such
~I
charisms, or for accusing the author of Acts of having
as a Paulinist arbitrarily introduced it into his account
of the primitive Christian world. If he had not found
them in the sources on which he drew for 21-13 1046f:
196, but merely drew upon his imagination, we may be
pretty confident that he would have brought in the
same elements at other points as well. Of course, the
mere fact that they were present in his sources does not
of itself give any security that their picture of .the
diffusion of the charisms is historically correct.
( b ) In exact proportion to the intensity with which
the charism of tongue-speech was exercised in Corinth
in Paul’s time does the complete silence of the Epistle
to the Romans on the same subject invite remark. I n
I Thess. 519 ( ‘ quench not the spirit ’) it may perhaps
be intended, or at least included. In any case
it cannot have long survived its most flourishing
period. The author of Acts certainly can never have
heard it exercised, otherwise he could not possibly have
fallen into the mistake of supposing that it was speech
in the language of foreign nations, or into the confusion
of identifying with this foreign speech the speaking with
tongues which occurred at the conversion of Cornelius
(Acts 1046 f: 1115 17). It is a significant fact that
Justin for his own period (about 155 A.D.) mentions
only prophetic gifts ( r p o & T i K & Xuphpasa) but no
speaking with tongues (DiuZ. 82, begin. ). Irenaeus
(about 185 A.D.), in his detailed treatment of the
charisms of which numberless instances happened every
day (HEY. ii. 493 [=324]; also up. Eus. HEv. 7 3 - 5 ) ,
speaks only of exorcisms of demons, prophetic visions
and utterances, healings, and some cases of raising of
the dead. In another place (v. 61 ; also up. Eus.
HE v. 7 6 ) he mentions tongue-speech also, but only as
something with regard to which he tears that it
happens in the case of many brethren in the Church
1 The most familiar example, by which it has been attempted
to explain the process, is t h e following: a tongue-speaker
babbled disconnectedly the syllables a6 and b a ; the interpreter
believed himself to have discovered the Aramaic word abba.
Possihly the matter often fell out so. It must not, however, he
thought that precisely this word was known only to certain
interpreters. As Paul employs it iu Roin. 8 r g Gal. 46 it must
have been known to Gentile Christians generally.
4771
SPIRITUAL GIFTS
and without letting us know whether by it he under-
stands the phenomena met with in I Cor. 14, or what
is described in Acts 2. Irenziis says :
‘ We hear of many brethren in thechurch possessing prophetic
gifts and speaking through the Spirit in all kindepf tongues and
bringing to light for the general advantage the hidden things of
men and setting forth the mysteries of God’ (rioAAiv A K O ~ O ~ W
&3sA-#Gv Iv 6 I ~ r A q u i p r p 4 q r ‘ ~ bFapiupala d ~ 6 v r w v .ai
ravro8ara?s AaAolivrov SLB rod rvfwparos yAJuuais cai d
+@+La r i v Iuep&ov cis +avrpbv by6vrov irir T$ ovp+ipovrr .ai
r,i puuvjpra rot? Om8 ;KSL~YOU~CVOV). It is to be noted that the
making manifest of the,secrets of men of which Irenatus speaks
immediately after mentioning tongue-speech is in I Cor. 14 24f:
attributed to the prophets, not to those who speak with tongues.
Tertullian also does not say that there was speaking with
tongues in his day’ all that he does is contemptuously to call
upon Marcion to eihibit in the case of any of his followers the
exercise of spiritual qifts which, says he, ‘are forthcon;ling from
side more easily (‘a me facilius proferuntur’): exhibeat
my
Marcion .. . aliquor prophetas . ..
qui et futura pratnnntiarint
et cordis occulta traduxerint (or : produxerint?); edat aliquem
ps+murn, aliquam visionem, aliquam orationem, dumtaxat
spiritalem,in ecstasi, id est, amentia, si qua lingus interpretatio
accessit ’ (adv. Marc. 5 8,.end). Thus tongue-speech appears,
not as an independent thing, hut merely in an added sentence
which with the whole of its surroundings is clearly reminiscent
of I Cor. 14 z s f : The ecstatical spiritual utterance, of which
Tertullian speaks, in his time refers not to ‘tongue-speech
hut to ‘ prophecy.
(c) For the ecstatical form of utterance did not
disappear so quickly as did tongue-speech. On the
contrary it became merged in the exercise of ‘ prophecy.’
This was favoured in the highest degree by the cir-
cumstance that already the O T prophecy was conceived
of as wholly ecstatical (above, § 86). This form of
utterance was most strongly prevalent in Montanism.
This may be the reason why stress is laid upon it by
Tertullian ; but as Montanisin altogether was nothing
new, but only a strong revival of a tendency which had
once before had prevalence within the church although
subsequently repressed, so also its view of prophecy
was, even if not exactly what might be called the
primitive Christian one, then at least the post-apostolic-
churchly one (Weinel, 78-96). It was only by way of
reaction against the exaggerations of this and against
the dangers for ecclesiastical office which grew out of it
that brought churchmen at last to the view which finds
expression in the title of the treatise of Miltiades (Eus.
HE v. 171), ‘ O n the necessity of a prophet’s not
speaking in ecstasy’ ( r e p i TOG p+j 6eiw rpoQ;rqw ew
6~urCiu~i XaXriw). As to how it came about that
‘prophecy’ also in its turn had to recede into the
background and give place to the ecclesiastical office,
see MINISTRY,8 38.
If, finally, we proceed to inquire into the value which
the charisms possessed for primitive Christianity, we
17. popular shall find that judges differ. ( u ) In the
view of the church of Corinth (which is almost the
charisms. only authority to which we can refer) they
were valued very highly. They were re-
garded, and quite naturally, as evidences of special grace
and favour, and were therefore zealously striven after
(1412). This zeal, if a right zeal, was manifested in
prayer (1413 does not mean that he who speaks in
tongue-speech is to pronounce this ecstatic prayer
of his with the purpose of interpreting it afterwards :
the meaning is that when not exercising his charism of
tongue-speech he is to pray for the gift of being able
himself to interpret any tongue-speeches he may subse-
quently receive). But we shall hardly be doing the
Corinthians an injustice if we suppose that many of them
sought to secure for themselves those ‘ gifts’ by other
means also-by imitation, or by artificially working
themselves up into a condition of excitement, by efforts
constantly repeated. Vanity, it would seem, was not
altogether without its part in the matter ; otherwise the
gift most prized and coveted would hardly have been
that of tongue-speech, the most conspicuous indeed of
them all, but at the same time the least fruitful. In the
mouth of the Corinthian Christians the tongue-speaker
alone was the ‘spiritual’ person ( ~ U E I J ~ ~ :T ~1437,
K ~ E
4772
 SPIRITUAL GIFTS
and, in accordance with this, in all probability 121
also).
( b ) From this we can see, at the same time, what
it was that properly speaking was regarded as the
valuable element in the charisms. It was the extra-
ordinary, the wonderful or miracnlous, that quality in
them which conferred a special importance on those who
possessed them. Fondamentally the view taken does
not differ from that of the Greek religion. Man desires
to enjoy the possession of the godhead, bestowing itself
on him individually. The same view dominates in the
O T ; and in Gentile-Christian circles also the O T con-
ceptions of the operations of the Spirit of God can have
been familiar and influential. This conception has a
marked leaning towards the quaintly, or even, one might
say, grotesquely miraculous. Thus it is the Spirit that
enables Samson to rend a lion or burst his own fetters,
that is able to convey Elijah from place to place at
pleasure (Judg. 1 4 6 15 14 I K. 18 12 z K. 2 16 ; cp in N T
Acts 839). Whether the thing done has a religious
purpose comes but little into the question.
This way of looking at the charisms is precisely that
which makes it Dossible to attribute the same workings to Y
18. other spirits than the Holy Spirit. (p)
of spirits. The belief in the existence of such spirits
was at that time exceedindv urevalent.
0 , I
Broadly speaking, they do not fall simply under the two
categories of good and evil, but many of them are re-
garded simply as of a subordinate character and a s
restricted in their insight. Whether they were called
demons in accordance with pagan ideas, or angels in
accordance with those of the OT, was indifferent ; in
either case they were thought of as quite personal and
as very active. Of such a spirit it is, for example, pre-
supposed in z Thess. 2 2 that it can produce the erroneous
belief that the day of the Lord is immediately at
hand.
(6). That these conceptions are present in I Cor. 14
also is shown by the plural, spirits' (7ruchpa.ra) which,
for linguistic reasons, cannot be taken to mean ' opera-
tions of the spirit'- a meaning, moreover, which in
u. 32 is excluded by the connection in which the word
occurs ( ' the spirits of the prophets are subject to the
prophets '). Thus to each prophet is assigned a proper
spirit, conceived of personally, by which he is inspired
(cp Rev. 226 : ' the God of the spirits of the prophets ').
Quite similarly I Cor. 14 14 also : ' if I pray in a tongue,
my spirit prayeth. ' Here it is not the proper spirit, so
to say, with which a man is born, that is intended ; for this
the apostle designates rather by the word ' understand-
ing' (VOCE), and distinguishes in this very verse from
' my spirit.' From this it follows that 21. 12 also is to be
understood quite literally : ' ye are zealous of spirits,'
that is to say, one of you seeks to obtain an inspiration
from one spirit, another from another.
(6) If this were not the meaning, no such thing as the
'discerning of spirits' would be possible. By the
' spirits ' here interpreters indeed have proposed to
understand distributions of the one Holy Spirit such as
in point of fact were actually believed in (Nu. 1 1 2 5 Rev.
1 4 31 45 56, Hermas, Sim.ix. 132 1 5 1 - 6 and often).
Only, in this case also, any a discerning' would be
meaningless. For, beyond question, any act of ' dis-
cerning' would consist in judging as to whether an
utterance founded upon spiritual suggestion was true or
false, one to be followed or rejected. I Cor. 7 40 shows
us how easily it could happen that conflicting judgments
were put forward on the ground that they were inspired.
Since Paul here supports his judgment on the subject of
re-marriage of widows with the words : ' I think that I
also have the Spirit of God,' we must conclude that in
Corinth other persons on the ground of suggestion by
the Spirit had decided in the opposite sense. Cp
1 4 3 7 5 where the best reading (dyuoebar) is to be pro-
nounced as an imperative (dyumim) : if any man is
ignorant, ignore ye him.
4773
SPIRITUAL GIFTS
(6) ,In all places where it occurs the 'discerning of
spirits is mentioned directly after ' prophecy ' ( I Cor.
12101429,cp I Thess. 521). In itself considered, it isnot
easy to see why mention should not be made of it in
connection with ' word of wisdom ' or ' word of know-
ledge.' Yet it is easy to understand how it needed
specially to be called into requisition in connection with
' prophecy,' if this last gave definite directions as to what
ought to be done in definite particular cases (J 7 d ) .
From I Cor. 1429 we cannot infer that only those who
also possessed that of ' prophecy ' possessed the gift of
' discerning ' ; ' the others ' (ot dXhor) can include others
also.
( e ) The recognition of a 'discerning of spirits' in-
volves in principle a complete abandonment of the belief
in suggestion of the Holy Spirit. With the utniost
emphasis Paul insists ( I Cor. l Z 4 - x 1 1 4 3 3 ) that all
charisms proceed from the Holy Spirit or from God ;
but at the same time they can also come from evil spirits
and the listeners must decide for themselves as to this,
and in fact decide again upon the basis of inspiration.
Here the most important point is that it is not Paul who
introduces the ' discerning of spirits ' as something new ;
rather does it exist in Corinth as a thing of course. Here
reveals itself the impossibility of continuing to hold fast
the belief in divine inspiration if a free use of it is made
in the actualities of life.
Already in the OT it had been found necessary to set up
criteria for discriminating between false and true pro hets
that the one class relate dreams, the others 'spes! mi 2:;
faithfully' (Jer. 2328) was, naturally, a quite inadequate dis-
tinction. That the true prophet must be a rophet of evil (Jer.
288) may have been true in Jerusalem in yeremiah's day; but
at other times, as, for example, in those of Deutero-Isaiah, this
maxim might have been turned against the prophets now become
canonical, and Jeremiah in fact finds himself constrained to add
'if a pro het prophesies peace and his word comes to pass, the:
shall he f e known to he a true prophet' (289). The result is set
up as a criterion quite expressly in Dt. 18 20-22, cp Ezek. 33 33.
Not only, however, does this criterion fail to he available early
enough; in Dt. 13 2-4 is contemplated the case in which it may
prove to have been deceptive, and for discerning the true prophet
the only way left is to ask whether he labours in the service of
Yahwk and (so Jer. 23 22) seeks to bring back the people from
the error of their ways. [Cp P ROPHET, B$ 23 2j.I
Equally inadequate is the criterion set up in I Cor.
123 : ' no man speaking in the Spirit of God saith, Jesus
is anathema. ' As to the difficulties and inconveniences
experienced by the apostolic age from the impossibility
of finding proper norms by which prophets could be
tested, see M I N I S T RY , 38 a , b.
But what did P a d think of the charisms? ( a ) On
the one side he entirely shares the popular opinion. He
19. Psul'e holds them all for ope&ionsbf the Holy
view of the Spirit, and is not sensible of the contra-
chariems. diction which we have discovered (above,
Ij 18 b, c, E ) in his own words, to the effect
that such operations can proceed from other spirits also,
in fact from evil ones. At the close of the discussion,
in order that any remarks of his in disparagement of
tongue-speech may not be misunderstood, he says :
1 forbid not to speak with tongues ' ( I Cor. 1439). H e
makes no effort to bring into action a criterion for tongue-
speakers analogoils to the ' discerning ' applicable in the
case of prophets. That no such criterion should have
presented itself of its own accord is to be accounted for,
on the one hand, by the consideration that tongue-
speeches were too unclear to admit of their showing
themselves to such disadvantage as in certain cases
definite sayings of prophets did, and, further, that even
in cases where they threatened to do so they could be
explained away ; on the other hand, by the considera-
tion that in the case of a tongue-speaker, one was, more
than in the case of a prophet, face to face u-ith a seem-
ingly supernatural communication which could be re-
ceived only with reverence and awe. The first-mentioned
consideration would hardly have restrained Paul from
setting up a criterion to be applied to tongue-speeches ;
for his disposition towards them is much the reverse of
4774
 SPIRITUAL GIFTS
favourable, and he has every reason for seeking to limit
their undesirable influence. The second consideration,
however, did. in point of fact, hold him back, especially
as, according to 1418,he himself was a speaker with
tongues more than any of the Corinthians.
(6) Alongside of this agreement with the popular view
there presents itself, however, in the case of Paul, the
great thought that every Christian hns the Holy Spirit
(Gal. 32 5 etc.). and that the whole life of the Christian
is an expression of the Spirit's activities (I Cor. 123 Gal.
5 5 2 a f . Kom.55 84-16). This thought could not fail,
in the case of every manifestation that laid claim to the
character of a spiritual gift, to lead to the question being
asked a s to its spiritual value, but also, at the same time,
to lead to a lowering of the estimate put upon gifts in
which their wonderful character was the most important
thing, and to an increased appreciation of those which
consisted in an intensified exercise of the new Christian
life on its moral side. In the first characteristic of our
definition (3 I ) we have already Seen that the idea of
the charisms is by no means uniform. Some of them
are expressly regarded as miraculous, in others it is
very difficult to perceive anything wonderful. To this
latter category belongs ministry' in all its forms ;
' government' also, and the simpler forms of devotional
utterance. It is hardly probable that all these things
owed their designation as charisms to the pagan or OT
presuppositions which had a share in the building up of
the conception ' charism ' {xdptupa). Since, then, this
idea must have come to its maturity in the course of
the missionary activity of Paul, under his eyes and with
his co-operation, it is hardly too bold to conjecture
that it was through his influence that these compara-
tively non-miraculous, but, from an ethical point r)f
view, all the more important, manifestations should
have come to be included in the number of the
charisms.
( c ) T o the same order belongs also the most important
modification which Paul applied to the idea of a charism
when he refused to recognise as being such anything
which had no utility for the life of the Christian coni-
munity (137, 7 b uupq5Cpov, profit' ; 1426, o I K o B o ~ + ,
'edification' ; see above, 3 d ) . By this miraculous
manifestations were by no means excluded ; but it was
no longer their miraculous character that supplied the
measure accordiug to which they were to be valued. It
was with this principle as his basis that Paul entered
especially on his campaign against the over-valuing of
tongue-speech. Broadly speaking, his great merit in
this ficld consists in his having nioralised, in accordance
with truly Christian principles, an idea that was only
half religious, and essentially miraculous, and, so far
forth, unfruitful.
We must proceed still farther in the same direction if
we are to arrive at an ultimate .iudEment
- on the historical
20. Conclusion significance of the primitive Christian
charisms. It is easily intelligible that
the joy of enthusiasm over the possession of a new
redeeming religion should have expressed itself in an
exuberant way which. according to the ideas of that
time. could only be regarded as the miraculous opera-
tion of the Holy Spirit. Apart from the exceptions
specified above (a 17u ) we have no reason for doubting
that these manifestations were genuine expressions of the
feelins of a strong religious life, not mere artificial imita-
tions derived from the pagan cults. On the other hand,
we know with regard to Paul that his ecstasies in which
h e had visions coincided in point of time with the attacks
of his malady (see G A L A T I A , 27); we shall, therefore,
hardly err if we bring into causal connection with this
malady the strong tendency to tongue-speech also, which,
in any case, was intimately associated with the ecstatic
condition. The ecstatical has always something of the
unhealthy about it. Thus it is not difficult to explain
why extensive circles in the early church kept entirely
free from such manifestations. The church could get
4775
SPONGE
on very well in their absence. It is, on the other hand,
equally intelligible that, once they had made their appear-
ance they were infectious, that they brought the church
life into serious danger, and that they led to reaction.
Paul led this reaction on sound principles; the later
church led it increasingly in the interests of its conception
of church oEce which was itself very unsound ; Paul by
the endeavour to persuade, the later church too often
by the exercise of force. The phenomena in question
owe their disappearance, however, by no means to this
reaction merely, but quite a s much to their own degenera-
tion. This degeneration was in large measure due to
the faith in their miraculous character. In this case
also it was demonstrated that miracles produce a favour-
able impression only when seen from a distance ; where
they have to be fitted into the daily realities of actual
life they always bring evil consequences in their train.
This holds true of the gift of healing the sick also, and
of miracle-working generally. The reaction just spoken
of did not venture to deny the miraculous character of
the charisms. We for our part, however, are constiained
to do 50, and to account for everything in the phenomena
to which a miraculous character has .been attributed by
the known psychological laws which can be observed in
cases of great mental exaltation, whether in persons
who deem themselves inspired or in persons who simply
require medical treatment.
The non-miraculous charisms on the other hand,
which, from the outset, possessed a moral character were
of abiding value. Without them the church could not
have lived; but they have never failed her and are
destined never to become extinct; even should they
have ceased to be called charisms. it will remain ever-
lastingly true that they come from the Spirit of God.
On the whole subject see Dav. Schulz, Geisfesga6en, 1836;
Supernaturnl Religion [1877], 9 321-397=popular edition, I z
pp. 753-809 ; and the commentaries on I E",,:
21. fiWatUre. 12-14. Works of a more comprehensivekind
are: Gunkel, Wi&unpn des bil. Geisfer
naeli der $0 uIdnn Anscliauuq der aport. Zeif u. nack der
LeIm der I&&, 1888; cz) unaltered, I-; and, following
Gunkel, Weinel, Winkurrgnr des Gcisles a. der Gzistey irrt
mur&#osC. ZeiiaZfev his auf Z r e ~ e u s ,1849; Beversluis, De
.
heiligegcest en zvne werkiqen nokens kef . . N.Vedond,
Utrecht, 1&96. On speaking with tongues, see Bleek Sf.ki-.
1829, pp. 3-79; 18p, pp. 45-64; Eaur, TQ6. Z t s d r ~TAPOZ.:
18306, pp. 75-133 ; St:Kr., 1838, pp. 618-702' Wieseler St.k-7.
1838, pp. 703-772 ; Hilgenfeld, Glossolalie, 1b50 : Rossieuscher)
Ga6e der Spvmkn, 1850 ; van Hengel, Gam der iukn, 1864 f
Arthur Wright, SOMSNT P d l e m r , 2 7 7 . ~ 2[1&98].
P. w. s.
SPOIL. T h e words are; (I) 554". J i Z i Z , Gen.
4927 (a ~ & f ) , etc., UICOXOU, r p o v o p f , & u p s a y + ;
(2) 18,bas, Jer. 1513, etc., UKAOY, H ~ O Y O ~ +Grapaay+
, ;
also (3) a?@?, m&'imih, 2 K. 2114 etc., npej?,
n&Fuss~%,Is. 4224t Kt., H P O Y O ~ ~ $Graprayll;
, (4) P&,
tereph, Job 29x7 etc.. tlpaaypa, biap?ray+. On the
division of spoils cp TAXATION, 5 I. See also
S ACRIFICE, § 8.
SPOKES, I . &i3z?im, WpVn, I K. 7 3 3 AV felloe.'
See WHEEL,16.
a. &Xatim, O'l$, I K.733 RV 'nave.' See WHEEL, l e .
SPONQE (crrorroc), Mt. 2748=Mk. 1 5 3 6 = Jn.
1929t. Neither r r . 5 y y o s nor u@by/os occurs in the
LXX. The use of the sponge, however, was early
known (cp, e.g., II. 18414; Od. 1111); see theClassica1
Dictionaries.
' Sponge ' is the fibrous skeleton of a marine animal
-the living part of which has been removed by dry-
ing, washing, and bleaching-belonging to the g r o q
Cornacuspongize of the non-calcareous sponges. T h e
most important Mediterranean species are Eusponp'u
oRcinnZis, the Levant toilet sponge ; and E . simmcu.
the Zimocca sponge, and H@pospngin eqwina. the
horse-sponge. All these are found at a depth of
4776
 SPOON
3-100 fathoms along the coasts. The sponge fisheries
of the Mediterranean are still the most important in
commerce, and the Syrian trade is considerable.
A. E. S.
SPOON (73, e Y I C K H ) . See ALTAR ; 5 IO ; COOK-
ING, § S , iii., INCENSE, § 7, and M EALS , § IO.
SPOTTED (K)’?), Gen. 30 32 8 Ezek. 1616 ; see
C OLOURS, 5 12.
SPRINGS. In a country where perennial streams
are rwe, and where months of summer may pass without
1. Distribution rain, the possession and preservation of
and preserva- water has always been a matter of
tion of water. serious concern. Water means life,
and its value to the people of Canaan
is illustrated by manifold references and numerous
beautiful metaphors in the OT. For details concerning
the amount of rainfall in Palestine, see R AIN , 2, and
on the distribution of springs and other sources of
supply, see P ALESTINE, 13. Generally speaking, it
may be affirmed that the most poorly watered districts
are the table-land of J u d s a on the W. of Jordan and
the heights of the BeZkd on the E.’ Some of these
tracts, however, were once better supplied, cp NEGEB,
§ 1.
Constructions for the preservation of water rank
among the oldest specimens of masonry in Palestine.
The simplest plan w& to dig a hole, with perhaps a
shaft of masonry, where springs were known to exist.
Such a pit (bat%-, WP, +pPeap) was often covered over
with a large flat stone, partly, no doubt, as a precaution
against accident (Ex. 2133), and partly to prevent its
being easily discovered. For this latter purpose sand
or earth might be strewn over the cover (cp also 2 S.
If 19).
The water was drawn up by a pitcher (had, Gen.
2416) or bucket (dlZi, Is. 4015, cp verb in Ex.216, xg),
and for the watering of cattle was poured into a trough
(I-uhaf, Gen. 3038 4x Ex. 216, f@efh, Gen. 2420 3038).2
When dry a pit of this kind might be used as a
prison, and as no attempt was made to keep it clean
the accumulation of miry mud (tic,Ps. 402 [3], cp Jer.
386) at the bottom added to the discomfort of the
prisoner.
The Heb. and Gk. terms for ‘ Spring ’ which require
mention are : 3-
. . ~Gen. 167 2416 I S . 291, etc. ; AV’s
I . ‘ g i n (ly),
‘well’ in Gen. 2413 4922, etc., obscures
2. Words the force and meaning. The ‘spring of
rendered Jacob ’ (Dt. 33 28) refers to J’s descendants ;
‘ spring.’ CD the metaDhors in Is. 48 I Ps. 6826 r2.11.
For particular springs, see reff. above in 5 I. The
. I>
connection with ‘dyin eye’ is doubtful, nor, if the two
are identical, is it easy to say which is older. The
‘ spring’ can scarcely take its name from the circular
shape of the orifice since this (as in English) is called
the nznulh (Gen. 2 9 2 5 ) . On the other hand, the eye
could easily be called the fountain of the tears (as in
Jer. 9 I [8 23] nym i i p n ~ y ) . Perhaps some primitive
belief underlies the usage.
2. mu)& (p), derived from the above, properly a
place of springs, cp Ps. 846 [7], Josh. 1815 (AV
‘ well ’), etc.
3. 6 P i r ( i g . cp above § I , and see C ONDUITS, I
[I]) occurs chiefly in the Hexat. : for place-names
compounded with it, see N AMES, IOI (6).
1 Full information is given by G. A. Smith, HG 77-79. For
the evidence of place-names indicating the presence of water see
SIOI.
NAMES
20th)er means of drawing up water are the s h d g i n Egypt
mson, Anc. Ex. 1281) and the water-wheel in Eabylonia
j:e”;s, Nippar, 1 x 3 5 141 ;’ cp Curtiss, prim. smz. Ret. 198
(Hamath]). There seems to be an allusion to the latter in
Eccles. 126. Cp A GRICULTURE , B 5.
3 Cp also B ROOK , CONDUITS, 5 I , Po&, P OOL .
4i77
STAFF
4. ma669d ( p p ) , Eccles. 126 (AV ‘ fountain ’),
Is. 357 4910. Properly a place where water bubbles
or gushes up, cp the verb in Prov. 184 of a bubbling
spring, and metaphorically, of a gushing man in Prov.
1 5 2 28, etc.
5. md&r ( l i p ) , a spring that has been dug(verb in 2 K. 19 24
I s 3725)- Mostly used in a figurative sense (Prov. 13 14 1622
1 6 4 etc.).
6. 7mi:d (X$D), properly, ‘place of exit’ (cp also above col.
883, n. 2), with O’p, 2 K. 221 Ps. 10733, 35 (6ri&&x), Is. 3725
( w w a y w y i ) , etc.
7. nb6d (7x3, orig. obscure) in Job 38 16, and perhaps also i6.
28 I T for ’?*, see DDB ad Zoc.
E. p l l a t / i (j&), Judg. 1 1st ; see GOLATH-MAIM. Truemean-
ing unknown, perhaps a Canaanite word. On the supposition
that the word IS corrupt see KEILAH.
9. n n @ N , Dt. 3 17 RVmg., see ASHDOTH.PISGAH.
I O . vyi (the usual word in 6 for nos. IA, 4 8 ) , Jn. 4 6 Jas.
3 II z Pet. 227, etc.
11. $p&p (Ws word for no. 3). Lk. 145 etc., an artificial well
as opposed to xp+q (cp POOL, 2).
A full supply of water, rivers on bare heights, wells
in valleys, pools of water in place of a wilderness, and
. -
3. springs instead of dry land characterise
Sentiment
and Beligion. the highest possible happiness to the
Hebrew mind (Is.4118 CP 357 441 Ps.
10735). The possession of water is ;he one i’ndis-
pensable acquisition without which the right of pasture
is useless. Hence, as Robertson Smith suggested,
property in water is more important and probably older
than property in land ( H S P ) 104J, cp CATTLE, 5).
The digging of a well, accordingly, was an important
function, and a typical specimen of one of the rites ac-
companying it has been fortunately preserved in Nu.
2117f. (see B EER , col. 51s). Here the spring is
addressed a s a living being, and indeed not only is
spring-water called ‘ living water ’ (Gen. 26 xg Nu. 19 17
etc.), but springs .are regarded as endowed with life.
They are regarded with reverence, credited with oracular
powers, and frequently associated with sacred beings. 1
On the widespread beliefs connected with springs and
wells among the Semites see IDOLATRY, 2, NATURE-
WORSHIP, § 4, Robertson Smith, KSP) (re& in Index).
Cp also Barton, Semitic Onp’ns, g z f i ; Curtiss, P y i m
Sem. KeL , passim I. and the Abbe Bourcais, ‘ La source
divine et generale conception Chaldeenne dans les
Monuments figures des Collections A Paris,’ in Maspero’s
Rec. de TYUV.. 21 177-193 (1899). S. A. C.
STABLE (;I!;),Ezek. 255 ; elsewhere ‘ pasture.’
5, I N N (ad&.).
See CATTLE,
STACHYS ( c ~ a x y c[Ti. WH]). greeted by Paul as
‘ my beloved ’ (Rom. 169).
He is mentioned in the apocryphal lists of the
‘ seventy,’ and according to pseudo-Dorotheus was
:onsecrated first bishop of Byzantium, by the Apostle
Andrew. I n the apocryphal A d a PhiZippi, a believer
Jf the name of Stachys is the host of Philip in Hiera-
polis. The name has been found among the remains
Jf the imperial household ( C Z L 68607).
STACTE (TQ!,nd@ph, ‘ that which drops ’ ; cp Job
3627 ; C T ~ K T H )is mentioned with onycha and galbanum
1s an ingredient in the holy incense (Ex. 3034 ; Ecclus.
24x5, RV‘W ‘opobalsamum,’ AV S TORAX ). A
iagrant resin is obviously intended ; but whether
Jpobalsamum, storax, or some other substance, is
incertain. Jewish tradition identified n@ph with opo-
mlsamum; but against this see B ALSAM , 5 4, and
M Y RR H . Perhaps gum tragacanth is meant; see
STORAX, 2. N. M.
STAFF. The words are partly the same as those in
ROD (where see I, 2, 3, 5). Nothing depends on ful-
1 This is not confined merely to medicinal waters (cp HAM-
~ A T H; MEDICINE, 0 2 , col. 3007 and reff.) where supernatural
deas might readily arise.
4778
 STAIRS
ness of references. By far the most interesting is Heb.
1121, cp Gen. 4731, where it is said that Jacob, after
blessing Joseph’s sons, ‘worshipped upon the top of
his staff‘ (?rpooe~dv?~acv 6?ri ~b &KPOV Pd@8ou ahroG),
implying 3 y ; r (the reading of 6 ,Pesh., It.) instead of
n ~ pChabas ~ justifies this reading by a reference to
an Egyptian custom.1 But it is clearly wrong, as the
parallel passage I K. 1 4 7 shows. ‘The ’ head ’ of the
bed is no doubt a peculiar expression; Holzinger
suggests that a ‘ teraphim ’ may have been placed at
the bed‘s head. But the true explanation is much
simpler. W N should
~ of course be cy
‘couch’ ; cp
‘yry m y ‘ the couch of my bed,’ Ps. 1323, RVmg. The
other words are-
I. myvn. niym, mal’ZnnM, ntifhzcth ( &w to lean),
Ex. 21 19 Is. 3 6 6 , etc. Used of the pastoral rod
(11 uxcj) in Ps. 234 (see note in Che. PS.(~)).
2. yy, ‘F:, of the ‘staff’ of a spear ( I S. 177 [Kt. is
wrong], 2 S. 21 19 237 I Ch. 205).
3. 153, pt?lek, in David‘s imprecation, ‘ let there not
fail from the house of Joab one that hath an issue, or
that is a leper, or that leaneth on a stafi’ etc., 2 S. 3 29.
So EV after d (KpaTGv U K W ~ X ~E-?,S or -7~1) and Tg.
Jon. ( 1 3 ~ 3q’pn ; so read, not 1 1 ~ ) . The rival render-
ing-’ that holdeth the spindle ‘-does not suit the
context nearly as well (cp H. P. Smith, ad Zoc.), but
has a philological basis lacking to the first explanation.
Moved by Driver’s learned note ( T B S 192,with n. I)
Lohr and H. P. Smith adopt ‘spindle’ for 159 (cp
Prov. 3119, and Toy’s note). There can hardly be a
clearer evidence of corruption ; no philology can save
this unsuitable reading. Read $m? ’n, ‘ one that leans
on (lit. grasps) a staff’-ie., a lame person. In
Prov. 3119 the reading is of course undisputed (cp
W EAVING , 2).
4. Bin, mat, Nu.1323 (a pole, for bearing a huge grape-
cluster).
5. 1 , dad(in plur.) Ex. 25 1 3 8 I K. 8 7 j : (to bear the ark).
6. 66Aov(in plur.), i t . 26 47 Mk. 1443, coupled with ‘swords’
(Jn. 18 3 speaks of SrAa). Cp the use of ?I& and U?@ (ROD,
1, 2). T. K. C.
STAIRS. The renclering ‘ stairs ’ in AV is generally
misleading.
I. In I K. 68t, no doubt, 07!7h,Zzilim ( ~ [ c I A L Kbva,3dutc
~ ;
cochzea) can be plausibly rendered ‘ winding stairs’ (EV ; see
however, Stade, ZATW81368, and cp TEMPLE, 5 11, n.).
2. I n 2 K. 9 13 ‘on the top of the stairs’ (nib+? I&F) can
hardly be the right description of the place where Jehu’s
supporters acclaimed him as king (see JEHU).
3. I n Neh. 9 4 it was not on the stairs but on the ‘scaffold’
(hp, ma‘iizeh; ivd,¶aorc) prepared for the occasion that
Jeshua and Bani stood. So A V w . Cp PULPIT.
4. In Ezek. 43 17 (j&yn, ma‘dOfh)‘stairs’ should be ‘steps’
(RV) ; the steps of the altar are meant.
% In CaFt. 2 14 ‘the secret places (nrnio, madrFgath;
Z p p r v a rou riporerpsparoc; in cazwvza macm‘e) of the
stairs ’ forms a bad parallel to ‘ in the clefts of the rock.‘ miin:
‘
rnadn?gZh (in plur ) is again rendered stairs ’ in Ezek. 38 20 ,
most scholars s u p p o ~
‘steep,
~ ladder-like hills’(RV ‘steep places ’
@$+yys) to be the true meaning. The word, however, is
suspicious.
6. ‘Stairs’ is right for Iva,QaO+o.oi in Acts2140.
T. K. C .
STALL (pa?n. marb@, etc.), Am. 6 4 etc. See
CATTLE, $ 5 .
~TANDARD ($a?), NU. 1 5 2 etc. see ENSIGNS.
STARS. To the Hebrews, as to other races, the
heavenly bodies were a constant source of interest and
wonder. Their great number, comparable to the sand
1 MJZanges &y?~oZugiqres P) 1 g t . ‘
H e then pronounced
the ordinary oath By the lite of the Lord Life-Health-Force,”
striking his nose and ears, and placing himself on the top of tho
staff. The reference is to the baton which the magistrate kept
stretched out during; the ceremony. By this attitude and by
these gestufes the pnsoner testified his submission towards the
magistrate.
4779
STARS
of the sea-shore (Gen. 155 2217 264 Jer.33zz), and
known only to God (Ps. 1474), their immeasurable
height above the earth (Job2212 Ob. 4 Is. 1413 ; cp
Dan. 81oa), and the brightness of their shining (Job
255 3126 Dan. 123), formed subjects for comment ;
but it was their movements that excited the keenest
attention, and opened up the widest field for the
imagination.
T o realise the Hebrew conception of this phenomenon,
it is necessary to make some reference to their cosmology.
1. Ear~h andThis bears close resemblance to the
Heaven. scheme of the Babylonians (Jensen,
Kosmol. 9 8 : ) . and may be thought to
have formed part of &e ‘common property of the
primitive Semitic family.
The earth was regarded as a flat surface, bounded
upon all sides by the watery deep. Above, the heavens
formed a hollow vault, which, resting on the waters,
might be said to describe a circle upon them (Job 26 IO
Prov. 827). This vault was thought to be solid, and
was spoken of a s a firmament (p.??,ni@‘, something
beaten or hammered o n t ; Gen. 1 6 etc.). or, in the
language of poetry, a tent spread out above the earth
(Is. 4022 Ps. 194). Upon the farther side of the
firmament, called by the Babylonians kin‘b iarni, ’ the
inner part of the heavens,’ there was again water, ’ the
waters which are above the firmament ’ (Gen. 1 6 3).
Indeed, one of the earliest of creative acts was the
placing of the vault of the heavens, in order to cleave
in twain the watery deep (oi;m, tfhirn, Bab. T i h a t ) ,
and thus make possible the appearance of dry land
(Gen. 16-8 Prov. SA$). Beneath the earth was the
realm of the underworld (he, S h f i l ) , and the -whole
was perhaps conjectured to rest ultimately upon the
waters of the deep (Ps. 242 1 3 6 6 ) .
Across the fixed vault of the firmament the heavenly
bodies appeared-_ to move, seeming, no doubt, to the
Hebrews as to ;he Babylonians, to
*. lVLovernents enter by a door in the eastern quarter
Of ?!e??.en1y of the heavens and to make their exit
oocues. in the W. bv a similar means. Thus.
to the poet’s mind, the sun has his tent in the heavens,
and at his rising is like a bridegroom who issues from
his bridal chamber (Ps. 1 9 5 5 ) .
The regularity of the movements of the stars arrested
the attention. They are governed by ‘ ordinances ’
established by Yahwk and unalterable (Jer. 31 3 5 3 ),
beyond the reach of human understanding (Job3833).
The spectacle of the heavenly host, led forth in full
tale, is a wonderful proof of YahwB‘s mighty power
(Is. 4026). Thus they naturally serve to mark divisions
of time. They are set in the firmament ’ to divide the
day from the night’ and to ‘ be for signs, and for
seasons, and for days, and years ’ (Gen. 114, cp Ps.
10419). The Hebrew month (!#lh, &&e?; r y , yh*a&)
is a lunar month, and the quarter of this period-one
phase of the moon-appears to have determined the
week of seven days (see M ONT H, I , 6 : WEEK, I).
Since this constancy in the courses of sun, moon, and
stars was so impressive, it is natural that anything
which appeared to be of the nature of an interruption
should, by the unscientific mind, be regarded as a
portent of catastrophe. Of such a nature would be
eclipses of the sun or moon, meteorites or falling stars,
and comets.
So we find the darkening of sun and moon and the falling of
stars associated with troublous times of direst calamity (Am. 8 9
Is.13 I O Ezek. 327 JoeI2103r[34]=Acts2~0 Joe13[4]15 Job97’
cp Mt.2429 Rev.61zf: Erz).‘ Comets, as moving in orbit;
which baffled the calculations of the ancients, can be spoken
of as ‘ wandering stars, for whom the blackness of darkness is
reserved for ever,’ and thus serve to depict the lot of the repro-
hate.
1 An eclipse or the sun which occurred in the year B.C.
763 is recorded in the Assyrian Eponym Canon. See AMOS,
D 4.
4780
 STARS
To the primitive imagination that which moves is
regarded as possessing life. Thus the heavenly bodies
are pictured as living beings, and form subject of folk-
lore and legend. Stars, in particular, are closely
associated with angels.
The phrase ‘ the host of heaven ’ generally denotes the stars
(zK.l7162135234f:Dt.419 1 7 3 J e r . 8 2 1913 Zeph.15; cp
Gen. 2 I Ps. 33 6 Is. 40 26 45 12) ; but in some cases, especially in
late writings, invisible agencies are also denoted by the same
term (T K. 22 19 Is. 8 4 4 Neh. 9 6 and perhaps Dan. 8 IO). Cp
also Is. 2421 and the fine poedcal statement in Job387 (cp
C K E A T I O N , 5 2 1 , e).
Special stars or constellations mentioned in the Bible
are as follow :-
( a ) by, ‘dyiS(Job3832) ; on the versions and on the
supposed
.. form dy, ’& (Jobgg),
.. ., see ARCTURUS.The
3. Special stars allusion to the ‘ children ’ of ‘ d y i f
limits the possibilities of interpretation
Or groups* to such constellations as can be
pictured under the form of a mother with children.
Among the ancients there appear to have been two
such-Ursa major, and the Pleiades.
In favour of Ursa major is cited the Arabic title
for this constellation.
This is nu‘;, ‘ the bier,’ the four stars forming the quadrilateral
being regard:d as a bier, which is follpwed by three mourners,
bundf nu‘:, the daughters of the bier.
It is, however, quite impossible philologically to
connect the Arabic word nu‘s’ with the Hebrew ‘dyir;
nor is there, in the passage of Job in which ‘dyit
appears, any trace of the idea of bier and bearers or
mourners. It is the merit of M. A. Stern1 ( * Die
Sternbilder in Hiob 3831f: ,’ in Geiger’s liid. Zeitschr.
3 2 5 8 3 ) to have been the first among moderns to adopt
the interpretation ’ Pleiades,’ and to have stated his case
with great cogency. Stern disposes of the claims of
Ursa major by pointing out that ‘dyis’, with the three
other constellations mentioned in Job3831f:, is cited
by the poet on account of its meteorological import-
ance.
This is evident from the context. In w . 22-30 we have
mention of snow and hail, light and east wind, thunder-shower
and lightning, rain and dew, ice and hoar-frost. Then follow
the three w. ;I-33 with reference to certain constellations ; and
in immediate succession, iurther notice of meteorological
phenomena-clouds and the outpouring water, lightning and
the bottles of heaven.
Thus the inference is clear that the constellations
mentioned are such as have special significance as
weather-signs. Now Ursa major, as a circum-polar
constellation, never passes below the horizon in the N.
*
hemisphere ; and, being therefore a conspicuous object
at all seasons, could never be regarded as possessing
any kind of meteorological importance. Thus its
mention in such a context would appear to be quite
misplaced.
On the other hand, the Pleiades, though but a small
group, possessed for the ancients great meteorological
significance.
By their rising at dawn the Greeks and Romans divined the
approach of summer whilst their setting at dawn heralded the
approach of the we; and stormy season cHesio6 Ogg. 383f:
571J 6 1 9 8 ; Virgil, Georg. 42313:; Ovid, Fast.5;993). The
expression ‘ ‘kyicwith her children ’ bears close resemblance to
the name ‘ hen with her chickens ’ applied to this group of stars
among both eastern and western peoples and actually em-
ployed in this passage as a translation of the Targum (59 ~ n j l l
jimin ~ n n v d . 3
The name ‘dyiS may then be thought to denote, not
the group as a whole, but the principal star, known to
astronomers as Alcyone. It must be deemed uncertain
whether the Massoretic vocalisation d y is correct. The
1 Stern is followed by G. Hoffmann ( Z A T W 3 107,f) and by
Nddeke (Bi6. Lex. 4 yo).
9 Cp Homer, Od. 5 275, olq 6’dppopb &L AoarpSv ’ Q r r a v o k
Virg. Georg. 1246, 4rctos Oceani metuentis aequore tingi.
Ovid, M e t . 13727, Arcton aequoris expertem.
.--
3 It is also worthy of notice that R. Yehiida’s explanation of
as as ~ n i , , p i f h d(BZrZkhafh 586) is interpreted by later
Talmudists as & 211, ‘the tail of the Ram ’ (i.e.,Pleiades), or
&iyi u ~ i‘the , bead of the Bull’ (it., Hyades).
4781
STARS
Peshittg renders by ‘iyyzitha,’ which probably has
philological connection with the Hebrew name, and
perhaps upon this analogy we may vocalise P?”p‘ZyliS
(Hoffmann), or else, with closer approximation ’to the
Syriac, v.;y, ‘ayylif, or &y, ‘iyyzif.
( b ) $a?, K&Z (Job 99 3831 Amos 58) is generally
supposed to denote O RION ( q . v . ) , the most remarkable
of constellations, both on account of the brilliancy and
colour of the three principal stars.P and the striking
resemblance of the figure to a gigantic human form
equipped with belt and sword. The position of this
group, a few degrees S. of the Ecliptic, renders it a very
conspicuous object as viewed from the N. temperate
zone, and among the Greeks and the Romans it was
much observed as a sign of the seasons.
Thus its heliacal rising, southing, and setting are severally
connected with different agricultural operations (Hes. OpP.
5 9 5 8 , -8,6148); but, especially, the time of its setting
marks the commencement of wet and stormy weather, when
navigation becomes dangerous (Hes. OpP. 6188; Hor. E@.157 ;
Virg. E n . 1535 4 52).
The mention of the bands of Orion’ in Job 3831 is
perhaps an allusion to the three stars of the belt, and
refers to the chains with w-hirh the giant-‘dull-witted
obstinate’ giant--($m) wasthought tohave beenconfined
by the Deity. If man can loose these bands-the poet
seems to mean-he may then hope to gain control over
those changes in the season which the constellation
marks. In Job 99 Amos 5 8 kPsiI appears to be cited
on account of its great b r i l l i a n ~ y . ~
(c) ny?, k i m i h (Job 99 3831 Amos 58) is translated
‘ Pleiades ‘ by EV and many moderns, in accordance
with the rendering of 6 in both passages of Job,‘
Symm. and Vg. in Job 3831, and Symm. and Theodot.
in Amos. If, however, the grounds upon which ‘dyiS
has been identified with the Pleiades can be considered
sufficient, it is evident that we must look elsewhere for
the constellation represented by kimih. Stern presses
the claims of Canis major with its bright star Sirius-
by far the largest of the fixed stars-known to the
Greeks as r b durpov p a r
A constellation of so great a meteorological interest
as Canis major and possessing a star of such brilliancy
as Sirius, may naturally be expected to find mention in
Job 38 ; and the identification with k i m i h is rendered
plausible by the close connection with k‘sil, just as the
Great Dog lies nearly to the S . of Orion and close to
his feet. A further point is the allusion to the ‘ chains 6
of Kimih’ (ny? n i q g ) , which on this interpretation
yields a good sense, since Canis major is the hound of
Orion.
( d ) The meaning of nii:n (Job 3832; see MAZZAROTH),
is highly uncertain. By most scholars the term is sup-
posed to be identical with niQ (see MAZZALOTH), the
worship of which, in conjunction with that of the sun, the
1 The same rendering is employed for wr,Job 9 9 , h,Job
1527, h, Amos 58. The Talmudic Knl’,flfhd(note above),
perhaps represents the same word with rejection of y.
a a& Orionis named Betelgeuse Rigel and Bellatrix : the
first and the secbnd, of the first magnitude f the last, among the
largest stars of the second magnitude.
8 On the phrase ‘their L&Sm ’ (OD”??) in Is. 13 IO see
ORION.
4 In @ Job 9 9 6 TO& IIAer68a KaI’Emepov ra; ’API[TO+OY
I(& Ta&a N~To;, it is quite clear that the order of the con.
stellations has been changed, np3 being brought to the
beginning and rendered IIAerh8a a s in 38 31, whilst cy, which
thus stands second is translated‘Eumpov as in 3832. This
change of order, which seems to have been overlooked by critics,
is substantiated by Pesh. )Id0 &? od,
b - L b iJo J-0.
6 For the ancients Sirius marked the time of greatest summer
heat (Horn. 11.2227.31, Hes. Ojj.417, Sc. 397; etc.) and its
connection with this period is still preserved in the ‘popular
ex re5aion ‘the dog days.’
f The rendering ‘sweet influences’ AV, RVmg. can he traced
hack to Sehaetian Munster (1535 A.u.), hut appears to be philo-
logically untenable.
4782
 STARS
moon, and all the host of heaven, was put down by Josiah
(2 K. 235) ; and d in both passages employs the trans-
literation p u ~ o u p w 0 , whilst Targ., in accordance with
Kings, uses in Job the rendering K - ~ D ? ~ w . In Rab-
binic Hebrew the maazdhith are the twelve zodiacal signs
(BZrdkhCth 324 ; Shabbdth 75a), but also the planets,
regardedasstarsofgoodorillfortune(BlrZshiLh rub., § IO,
IOC, etc. ). In agreement with this latter signification,
we have, according to the restoration of de VogiiB, the
dedication oy1 answering to the Greek 'AyaO?j
~ L i x yin a Phcenician inscription from Larnaca of about
the 4th century B . C . ( C I S 1 95). It is doubtful, how-
ever, whether we can safely argue back in explanation of
the earlier useof the expression. I n h b i c m a n z i l d e n o t e s
a 'lodging-place' or 'mansion': and theplural a2-mandzil
is used of the twenty-eight ' mansions ' of the moon.
In Assyrian, according to Friedr. Delitzsch (Ass. H W B ) ,
manzazu denotes ' a place of standing,' from the root
nazdzlr ' t o stand' ; just as in Heb. nip?, ' place,' is
derived from olg Manznzu occurs on the fifth table
of the Babylonian Creation series ( s e CREATION, § z )
which begins 1 ' H e made the mansions (mansaei) of
the great gods.' Further, there is a fem. form of
nanaazu-viz., manzaltu ( = manzaztu), mazaltu. For
this Delitzsch quotes 3 R. 59 35a : 'The gods in heaven
in their mansions (man-eal-ti-&nu) set me. ' Jensen
(KosmoZ. 3 4 7 5 ) mentions the same facts. Whilst,
however, Delitzsch identifies these manaalti with the
zodiacal stations (Pml. 54), Jensen thinks that they
were perhaps iifty in number,* corresponding to the
number of the great gods, and represent, not merely
the signs of the zodiac (cp Lockyer, Dawn ofAstronomy,
1338), but rather certain fixed stars and planets, lists of
which are to be found in the inscriptions, but of which the
identification appears to be possible only in a few cases
(15-osm. 1 4 6 f ) . ~ Here, then, it may be supposed that
we have the original of mazzdl6th of 2 K. 235 ; though,
as is plain from the diverse opinions noticed above, the
precise reference of these 'mansions,' as objects of
worship borrowed by the people of Judah from the
Babylonians, still remains uncertain.
With regard to maazdr3fh. Stern is undoubtedly
correct in stating that in the words of Job 3832 ' Canst
thou bring forth maeair6th in its season (my?) ,'
maasl-
76th in conjunction with ' in its time' (my>)' denotes a
plurality which can be spoken of as a unity, and so a
group of stars which form a single constellation. This
consideration, which gains weight from the connection of
mazzdr6th with'dyif, krsil, and KZmdh, each of which de-
scribes a single special star-group, cuts at the root of the
identification of mazzd76h in Job with maazdZ6th as men-
tioned in z K. 235,upon the view which has above been
taken of the latter. The special constellation represented
by mazzdrzfh can, however, in default of evidence, be
merely conjectural. Stern's view, that the word de-
notes the Hyades, is not open to objection, and is to
some extent supported by the position of mazzdr3th after
Rimdh and i 5 i Z and before'dyif, acccording to the posi-
tion of constellations in the heavens. But that this is the
intention of the order of citation may be questioned,
since in such a case the more natural method would be
to reverse the order, and to speak of Pleiades, Hyades,
Orion, Canis major, according to the order of rising.
The Hyades were of meteorological importance to the
ancients, who regarded their heliacal rising as the
portent of wet weather (Ham. ZZ.18486 ; Hes. Opp. 613 :
Virg. &n. 1744, etc.). Stern, who would identify
mazsdrfith and mazzdZ6th, attempts to connect mazzdi@h
with the verb $?! (hiaail) in the sense 'rain-producers' ;
1 See Jensen Kormol. z88j? ; Schrader, COT 115.
2 The of the n/unmzi appears to have originally
been given in the Creation tablet.
3 Jensen finds allusion to the zodiacal signs in the Ma& stars
of I. 2 of the Creation table: above cited. The word misrritu
&digin of
not .~wahz)or i p 3 a which occurs in 13, cannot, with hyce
Bub. 389),'be identified with Maurirdfh.
4783
STARS
but this is certainly inferior to the derivation adopted
above (see further MAZZAROTH).
( e ) The expression, ' the inner chambers of the south '
(Job 9 g 1 p n w n , &d7i themin), is too indefinite to b e
taken as a reference to any special star or group of
stars, such as the bright star Canopus or the constella-
tion of the ship to which it belongs (Stern). Probably
Dillmann is correct in suggesting that the author of Job,
as a man of travel, would know that in journeying to-
wards the S. more and more stars and constellations
appear in the heavens, and might therefore reasonably
refer in such terms to the stars of the southern hemi-
sphere.
(f) On &an as a representation of the planet Saturn (Am.
5 2% L t Z d (?) as the planet Venus, and Diosncn'as the constella-
tion Gemini (indirectly referred to in Acts 28 IT), see CHIUN,
LUCIFER, CASTOR A N D POLI.UX. [There is according to Crit.
Bib., reason to think that the Arabic name of Saturn, zu?aniu,
underlies the $~li-, of I K. 10 15. It is held that the ' Hamel'
referred to was probably a N. Arabian, not a Syrian, king.
Adkuc snbjkdice lis est.]
It is highly imprcbable (cp CALF, GOLDEN) that the
L_ -
Hebrew tribes in EwDt came under the influence of the
4. Star-worship. Egyptian religion, which was based
uDon the worshiD of the sun.
But such place-namks as Beth-sh;mesh in SW. Jndah,
Har-heres Timnath-heres, and Heres on the E. of the Jordan
permk th; inference that t h e local Baal of the Canaanite, whose
cults confronted the Israelites on their immigration into Canaan,
was sometimes connected with the sun. See, however S U N
and on this and other dificult points which here sugges; them!
selvesfor consideration see ASHTORETH,BAAL, PHCENICIA $ 11.
On the much disputed statement of Am. 526 see CHI"; AND
SICCUTH, SALMA.
Am. 526 introduces us to the subject of star-worship.
The compiler of the Book of Kings regards the worship
of ' all the host of heaven '-doubtless introduced from
Babylonia-as one of the causes of the fall of the
northern kingdom ( z K.1716). In the case of the
kingdom of Judah we possess fuller information. Star-
worship was here, apparently, not introduced before
the time of Manasseh ; but of this king it is related that
he built altars to all the host of heaven in the two courts
of the house of Yahwb ( z K. 215). Priests were
appointed to offer sacrifice to the sun, the moon (see
MOON), the mazzdZc2A (see above, 3 [dl), and all the
host of heaven, and special horses and chariots were
dedicated to the worship of the sun, probably to be em-
ployed in processions (2 K. 234 5 11). Cp NATHAN-
MELECH. It was not until the reformation in the 18th
year of J&ah (B.C. 621) that measures were taken to
root out this Babylonian astral worship (2 K. 23). owing
to the influence of the book of Deuteronomy which
contains special injunctions against the worship of the
sun, moon, and stars (Dt. 1723; cp 419).
Josiah's efforts, however, were by no means wholly
successful. The new cult seems to have been largely
embraced by private individuals, who worshipped the
heavenly bodies upon the roofs of their homes, burning
offerings and pouring out libations (Zeph. 1 5 Jer. 82
19 13). More especially does the worship of the QUEEN
OF H EAVEN (q.n.)-i.e.. probably, IBtar as a celestial
goddess-appear ' t o have enjoyed popularity among
women2 (Jer. f 18). The reformation of Josiah, which
must have been mainly concerned with public and
national religious abuses, could not eradicate such
private cults. Ezekiel (writing in the 6th year of the
captivity of Jehoiachin, 591 B. c. ), pictures the worship
of the sun as carried on a t Jerusalem within the Temple-
conrt (Ezek. 816$)3 and, as Jeremiah assures us, even
after the fall of Jerusalem the Jews still persisted in the
worship of other gods, and especially of the queen of
1 Also in 379, reading with Duhm, v7F foiR@, and omitting
n in ling. For the nri.3Z-m of the corresponding clause (EV
'north '), cp MAZZALOTHand on this p.assage and on 38 31-38
see Che., J B L 17 103fl (18981.
2 See Che. Jer his Lz fl a n d Times 198.
8 The holdingof the<ranch to the'nose 'in worshipping the
sun is commonly t r d to a Persian ori& SN, however.
TAMMUZ.
4784
 STARS
heaver1 (Jer. 44). The reference in Job 3116f: to the
adoration of sun and moon by kissing of the hand
sufficiently shows the danger which still beset the Jews
when the poem of Job was written.
The only distinct reference to astrology in the O'r
occurs in Is. 4713, where the exilic writer, in predicting
6. Astrology. the imminent downfall of Babylon,
advises her in mockery to resort to her
astrologers, if perchance -they may save her from the
impending catastrophe. Several peculiar expressions
are used (see ' Isa.' SBUT). The phrase ' dividers of
the heavens' alludes to a division of the sky for the
purposes of astrology, and the reference of * the monthly
prognosticators.' or, ' those who make known at every
new moon ' seems to be to the official reports drawn up
by the Babylonian astrologers to be sent in to the king
month by month (see M A G I C , 5 3 151). Many such
Assyrian reports are stiil extant, and one of them gives
us an astroiogical calendar, each month or day of which
is noted as being lucky or unlucky for the commence-
ment of a campaign, or for other operations.'
The interest and importance of astrology to the Baby-
lonians is well known. According to the Chaldean
priest Berossus (quoted by Pliny, NH 7 57) astronomical
observations had b&n carried on by the Babylonians
for 490,000 years before his day. In the sixteenth
century B.c., a great astrological work was drawn up
on seventy clay tablets, and deposited in the library of
Sargon of Agade (see Sayce in TSBA 1458 ) .
The word n+?@, &&ifl&m, which (in its Aramaic as well as
its Hebrew form) occurs several times in the Book of Daniel, is
rendered 'astrologers'by AV (RV 'enchanters'); hut this inter-
pretation is merely assumed. The word is of Assyrian origin
(mYa& aSa& etc.), and means rather sorcerer, ckarmer
(COTon Dan. 2 4 ; Del. ProZeK. 141 ; cp Syr. k 3 j k 5 ) .
A late e r i d e n e of the celebrity of Babylonian as-
trology appears in the narrative of the Messiah's star
in Mt. 2. [On the star cp NATIVITY,§ IS.] For what-
ever the description && &N~.TOAC%P( ' from the East ')
maymean, the title magi (&a: see ZOROASTRIANISM)
implies that the lore of the wise men was Babylonian.
The star which they saw at its rising (& 4 ~ P ~ T O X ? )
was evidently such as to be regarded as a portent onIy
by practised astrologers. Herod and 'all Jerusalem'
appear not to have noticed the phenomenon until their
interest was aroused by the inquiries of the strangers,
and then the king had to 'inquire diligently the time
of the star's appearance. Thus the hypothesis which
represents the star as a cornet or new star of exceptional
brilliancy may be considered to be excluded. Kepler
(De 1.Chr. sematoris nostri two anno nafaZitio, 1605
A.D.) thought of a close conjunction of the planets
Jupiter and Saturn in the constellation Pisces, which
occurred in the year 747 A.c.c . , and in this view he has
found many followers (cp Ideler, Hazd6. d. Chronol.
2 3 9 9 8 ) . " A similar conjunction in the year 1463 A.D.
led the Portuguese Rabbi Abarbanel ('437-1509) to
infer (Comm. on Daniel) that the birth of the Messiah
was shortly to be expected. J. H. Stockwell ( A s k
]OUT. Nov. 26, 1892 ; quoted in Nature, Dec. 1 2 . 1892)
argues in favour of a conjunction of Jupiter and Venus
wrhich took place in the spring of 6 ac.
I t should he observed that the objection of Meyer (Comrn.
nd loc.), that the hypothesis of such a conjunction is excluded
hy the singular A m + , is quite alien to the question, since the
1 [In Is. 47 13 W. Muss-Amok (AJSL 16 123 [ r p l ) , de-
veloping an idea of Zimmem, would read 0'3V3 n*,: ' those
who scan the heavens,' ,973 being regarded ==EN the As-
syrian class-name for the soothsayers called seers. Another
view, proposed in Crit. Bib.,is to read Iine a of stanza 5 of the
Song of Triumph tbm,
hill*'BOP 1 hYUV* ?l?h ?@fWl'l,
'Let the spell-repeaters of Ishmael, the diviners of Jerahmeel
deliver thee,' supposing 533 to mean the capital of J e r G e e l
N. Arabia. T. K. C ]
9 See, on the o t h a hand, the dam+ criticism of th\s view
by C. Ritchard in Smith's OB, 'Star o f t h e Wse Men ; also
Alem. Roy. As. Soc. 25.
4785
STEPHANAS
reference of 'his star' would not necessarily refer to the con-
junction taken as a whole, hut rather to one men.ber of the con-
junction, which, by its peculiar position, was calculated to cast
the nativity of the King of the Jews.
For star-worship see further N A T U ~ W E O R S H I P , $ 5. Cp
Campbell l'homson, Rzflorfs ofihe Magiciaas ana'dstrologers
of Niii. and Bab. in the Brct. M u s . (190.). c. F. u.
STATER. The word CTATHP means properly a
weight, and was used generalIy by the Greeks for the
unit of weight, corresponding to the eastern sk@eZ.
There is no reason to douht the current derivation of the word
from the r o d m m - ,to weigh ; the attempt to connect it with
Ktar (Jensen, Zii 14183, and Johns, A s s y ~Deeds
. nnd Docu-
ments, 2 *E.+), apart from philological difficulties, rests on the
assumption that money was originally coined in Nineveh, and
that some early coin might hear the head or figure of the city
goddess Istar.
The word is used in Mt. 1 7 2 7 (AV ' piece of money,'
RV 'shekel '), where it means a stater or four-drachm
piece of the Phcenician standard. As regards the actual
coin intended, it must have been a stater either of Tyre
or of Antioch. since at the time concei-ned these were
the only mints issuing coin of the right standard.
Under SHEKEL (8 5 ) will be found an illustration of
the silver didrachm or half-stater of Tyre; the figure
given here represents a silver stater of Antioch.
Stater of Antioch.
The obverse bears the head of Augustus with the title
KAI2AAPOS XEBAZTOY. On the reverse is a figure of the
Fortune of the City of Antioch seated on a rock, wearing a
mural crown, and holding a palm branch ; at her feet is the
river-god Orontes, in the attitude of swimming, half-emerging
from the waves. (This type is a copy of the famous group by
the sculptor Eutychides set up soon aftef the foundation oi
Antioch.)
The min is dated ' in the thirtieth year of victory'-
i . e . , of the era of Actium- -and , in the thirteenth consul-
ship ' of the emperor ; hence it belongs to the year
2-1 R.C. Thisspecimen weighs 229.5 grs. troy. Others
of other dates bear the name of Antioch ('AVT<OX&JV
fLTTpoP&€WS).
Staters or shekels are probably meant by the word
cipylipra used for the I thirty pieces of silver ' (Mt. 26 15
27 3 5).
That denarii (see PXNNY, $ I) cannot he meant is proved by
the analogy of Ex. 21 32 (thirty shckcZels of silver the price of a
servant gored by an ox) and Zech. 111 2 3 (where denarii are out
of the question). On the other hand, the 50,000 pieces of silver
of Acts 19 3 9 (the value of the magical books) may have been
denarii, as indeed the Vulgate translates them. G. F. H.
STATUTE (Sn, fi?! ; Jppn, a to engrave,' and SO
a sfafufc fixed by being c Tanen, or inscribed, on .sane dur-
Hhle surdce ' Dr. Ut. 62),%t. 5 5 8 11. See generally L AW
L ITERATUR E); LAW A N D JUSTICE.
STEEL. For nt@n!, n2h&th; "R?, ntk5fah.
see B RASS : and for lli$s.pPZa&fh, Nah. 2 3 [&. see
IKON, 2, COl. 2174.
STEPHWAS (CTE+ANAC [Ti. WH]), a member of
the Corinthian church. His ' household (cp the house-
hold of C~ESAR [F.v.]), ' the first fruits of Achaia,' had
been baptized by Paul, and its members had after-
wards distinguished themselves by the zeal with which
they had set themselves to minister to the saints (I Cor.
116 16 I S ) , the ministry intended being doubtless chiefly
that of hospitality. Of Stephanas personally, all that
we learn is that, along with Fortunatns and Achaicus, he
had brought news to the apostle at Ephesus which had
' refreshed his spirit ' (I Cor. 16 173).
4786
 STEPHEN
STEPHEN
The narrative in Acts The speech (5 4J).
(§I I f : 7). Style of the narrative (8 8).
The charge (5 3). Significance of episode (8 9).
Bibliography (%IO).
Stephen (CT&&NOC) in the N T is the name borne
by an early Christian agent in Jerusalem, who was the
first to suffer for his faith. As narrated in Acts (61-83,
cp 1119 2220) the pregnant and tragic episode of Stephen
falls into three sections : ( a ) the prologue (61-15), con-
taining an account (i. ) of Stephen’s appointment as one
of the Seven, and (ii.) of his subsequent arrest ; ( b ) the
speech (7 1-53)which he is represented as having delivered
upon that occasion ; and ( c ) the epilogue of his murder
and its effects (7 54-8 3). Although by common consent
this narrative is regarded critically as undeniably histor-
ical, it requires to be subjected to a close analysis before
it can be employed as evidence for its period.
The isolated character of 6 1-6 [7] indicates that
the editor here has a special source or tradition before
1. acts I-7. him. Note the first occurrence of
‘ disciples,‘ paOr/nd, the solitary instance
(in Acts) of ‘ the Twelve’ (cp Lk. 81),the church still
meeting as one small body (as against 44 514), the
conception of communal charity (cp COMMUNITY OF
GOODS, 5 , and 0. Holtzmann, Ztschr. fz2r K i r c h n -
gesch. 14327-336) and the strange position of the Seven
(ACTS, 5 IO ) who, though ostensibly appointed to the
delicate and responsible subordinate task of superintend-
ing charity and money-matters (see Field, Otiuna
Noruicense, pars tertia, 1899, p. 113), really do as
spiritual work’ as the apostles (cp 68J 84f. 218;
Holtzmann, H C l a [1901], 52-54). The irrelevant
summary of 67 is certainly an editorial addition which,
like 514, interrupts the run of the narrative. For the
increase of the church has nothing to do with what
immediately precedes, and the conversion of priests has
no connection with what follows. 68f. is the original
and natural sequel to 6 1-6. 6 1-6 has, indeed, a retro-
spective glance. It sums up the primitive Jerusalem-
period (IS) of the history, as 67-where otherwise the
words ‘in Jerusalem’ (& ‘Icpouuah~p)would be super-
fluous-is meant definitely to show ; but its main object
is prospective. The editor’s aim is to introduce two
new figures in Philip (84-39; see col. 3697-8) and
especially Stephen (68-83), whose activities form the
pivot of the next stage in the early church’s history, a s
well as to connect Antioch (65 1119-21)with the new
mission-impulse. There may be a dramatic touch in
6 ~ f,.where the preceding outward success of the young
church is set beside the first sign of inner friction. Yet
the immediate interest of the historian is not this juxta-
position or even the office of the Seven-a vague order,
who drop out of sight at once-but with the man who
was their most prominent member, and who found
before long that his energy led to his arrest 68-15.
Like some or all, perhaps, of his fellow-officials
Stephen was probably a Hellenist-Le., a Greek-speak-
ing Jew resident in some Greek city (HELLENISM, 5 2)-
and it is significant that his opponents (probably in-
cluding Paul himself, 223) came from his compatriots
1 The pragmatism of the editor is shown in 6 6 where he
suggests that the apostles’ ratification was needed for every new
office and departure (cp 13 1-3) in the church (even though in
this case the recipients of their blessing were already full of the
Spirit, v. 5 ) and that those who afterwards became preachers to
the Gentilgs were sanctioned by the heads of the Christian
community. I t is certainly not Stephen’s efforts in charity
organisation which involve him in the controversy of 6 91: On
the other hand, the incident of this internal disc-ission and its
satisfactory treatment indicates not merely a certain liberality of
spirit-however tardy-on the part of the Hebraist majority but
also an absence of ecclesiastical pretension on the part of the
apostles, since their action showed that the church was to he
a church indeed : ‘not a mere horde of men ruled absolutely
by the Apostles but a true body politic, in which different
functions were askiqned to different members ’ (Hort, Chvistian
Ecclcsia, 52). Both of these ideas were probably present to the
editor of Acts (cp C HURCH, D TI). Cp also T Pet. 4 11.
4787
STEPHEN
(see LIBERTINES, D ISPERSION , $117 f., 22, CILICIA,
3, PROSELYTE, 3f., also the Lucan touch in Lk.
21 16, ‘ delivered up 6y kinsmeii ’). The circumstances
of their origin rendered Hellenists often somewhat
suspect in the eyes of rigid Palestinian Jews. Hence,
by the operation of a common psychological law, many
of them-so far from being more liberal and open-
minded-cultivatedexceptional strictness and suspicious-
ness in the practice of their religion. Just as the
convert frequently outdoes those born in the faith by
his eager zeal to accentuate the difference between his
past and his present, so Hellenists were by no means
ipso facto emancipated from the particularism of the
Jewish faith. Their colonial life’ did not naturally
create an atmosphere in which ’ the hard lines faded
and the ideal depths were opened.’ In practice and
theory, as the subsequent narrative shQws (cp 929 21 27
2 2 3 f.), they often attached themselves to the most
pronounced and bigoted habits of Judaism practised by
the Pharisees. And this throws light at once upon their
antipathy to Stephen, who perhaps bad set himself to
labour among his former associates ( S g f . ) , no less
than upon his own exceptional character. To their
scrupulous conscience he appeared a renegade, a dis-
credit to them personally and a revolutionary force
within the religious praxis of the nation. They were
the first to detect and challenge this liberal preacher,
and their antagonism proves that his wider outlook and
unique grasp of the spirituality of religion were by no
means an inevitable product of his training. As in the
case of Paul, so with Stephen : Hellenism furnished
merely the soil of the religious growth (65 8 IO).
The dual nature of the narrative in 68-15, fluctuating
between the riotous justice of a mob and a trial before
a. Acts 68-15. the Sanhedrin, is patent.% As almost
all the critical editors are agreed, the
conception of a trial is editorial or subordinate, and the
alternatives are to regard the passage as a combination
of two sources or as a single source edited and modified.
In the case of a single source, the alterations and
additions (possibly due to a correct enough impression
of the speech and situation) are to be found in ZV. I I ~ .
(13) 15 (in whole or part) ; so e.g., Weiss, Wendt, and
Moffatt. In the case of two sources, it is most tempting
to agree with those (Spitta, J. Weiss, Hilgenfeld) who
find the second (inferior) source in I&-15 ( m b - 1 4 , Jiingst).
The isolated allusion to miracles in v. 8, and the better
connection of v. g with either 5 or 7, suggest that v. 8
is also editorial.3 Why the Sanhedrin-notion was intro-
duced, it is not easy to say. Probably the editor regarded
the Sanhedrin as the representative body of the Jews, just
as he concluded the apostles to stand for the Christian
community, and considered that here as hitherto any
Jewish prosecution must proceed from or at least through
them, to be judicial and regular. Whether this idea was
purely pragmatic, or based upon some independent oral
1 Martineau (Seal of Aufltorify, 631), who goes on, however
to point out that the fusion of Jewish and heathen thought i:
Hellenistic culture could not of itself have produced the Christian
universalism. That reaches hack, past Stephen to Jesus and
‘his infinite longing to open the soul of man to t i e life in God,
unhindered by the mediation of priest and ritual. Thus the
fountain of catholicity is in no confluence of philosophic, no
combination of external conditions, but in the unique personality
of ems of Nazareth.‘
JSimilarly in the account given by Josephus ( A n f .209) of
James’s murder some thirty years later (see JAMES, 8 3 : and
von Dohschutz, Die Urchrisllichcn Gemeinden (1902) IIO I:
IZIJ, 272). I t is curious that these two martyrs, whd repre-
sented the opposite Wings of early Christian sentiment, should
die-or be represented as dying-in somewhat similar fashion.
3 Bacon drastically regards 6 11-7 I (reproducing Mk.1455-60),
7 55-565sa-60 8 I a c, 3 (reproducing Acts 22 41: 20 26 IO Lk. 22 9
23 ;4 46) as editorial modifications added to bring the speech into
line with the general Lucan scheme ; whilst the reference to
miracles in 68 has been substituted for the substance of 9 29
’unhistorically-cp Gal. I 21-~4-transferred to Paul), and the
words ‘ and of them of Cilicia and Asia ’ (K& T&Y brb K C A C K ~ S
ral ’ A d a s ) in 6 g are an editorial (cp 7 58 8 I) addition to a
source which knew of only one synagogue (i.e., an Alexandrian
)r North African one).
 STEPHEN
tradition which alluded to an appearance of Stephen
before the Sanhedrin, or an inference from the r6le
undoubtedly played by it in the subsequent persecution,
we are not able to determine. l h e slight obscurity
resting on the details shows that the editor's distance
from the period prevented him from supplementing in
strictly accurate fashion the gaps in his source. For-
tunately the haze does not blur the main outlines of
\\hat happened : Stephen's arrest was the result of a
popular Cmeute. which restrained itself just long enough
to allow him to defend himself before a suspicious and
exasperated audience, which numbered-perhaps un-
officially-several members of the Sanhedrin.
Stephen's persistent propaganda had created quite a
iiew situation. T h e people (6IZ cp 2 47 5 13) were now up
3. The charge in arms againit Christianity, and the
in in st stephen. charge was both grave and religious.
Whether 611 or 6 1 3 f. be taken as
the original source, the accusation was that of rank
blasphemy against the Mosaic law and the temple-
cultus. 'To rigid high-churchmen, like these Pharisaic
Hellenists (cp APOCALYPTIC L ITERATURE . §§ 56, 58),
and indeed to the people as a whole, especially in the
capital, where prejudices naturally ran hot and hard, it
seemed a horrid impiety to suggest that these ancestral
privileges (law and cultus) were neither final nor abso-
lutely essential means of grace. Stephen had probably
appealed to the authority of certain familiar sayings of
Jesus, analogous to, if not identical with, those cited in
Mk. 713-23132 1458 (cp 1529 Il.)l Without suggesting
that Stephen spoke disrespectfully of the law or of the
temple2-which would have been untrue to the spirit of
Jesus (particularly w-hen Lk. had expressly maintained
the genuinely Jewish piety of Jesus and his attendance
on the temple, Lk. 22z-4g), as well as out of keeping
with the normal tone of contemporary Christianity-Lk.
implies that Stephen had assumed an attitude less of
antagonism than of comparative indifference to such
national institutions, refusing to treat (e.g.) the sacrificial
system as of absolute validity for Jew: who believed in
a Messiah about to return and establish a spiritual era.
Zealots are angered as much by a refusal to echo their
beliefs to the letter as by deliberate opposition : to
ignore their tenets is as keen an insult as to attack them ;
and it is a fair inference from the historical data to
assume that the negative and positive aspects of Stephen's
preaching were alike interpreted by the sterner fanatics
as a danger and a defection. Their fierce attachment
1 Cp Keim /. v. Naz. (ET) 171f: 5 ~ ~ 6 . 2 3 0 .There can he
little doubt (dut cp S ON OF MAN)that Jesus did actually antici-
pate a messianic triumph for himself which involved at his return
the downfall, not merely the supersession, of the Jewish temple :
and yet a passage like Rev. 11~ f indicates
: how unable certain
Judaisticcircles of primitive Christianity were to sympathise with
this outlook. I t is true that, even beyond the Essenes (ESSENES
5 s), there were abroad in Judaism movements of thought whicd
attached quite a subordinate value to the sacrificial cultus and
the temple itself (cp Holtzmann, N T Theol. 1'04 f: 391 J).
These, however could hardly be very influential in Jerusalem
although the Alkxandrian culture of Stephen probably made h i d
ausceptible to such tendencies parallel with the teaching of Jesus.
He does not notice, what a modern reader would be impressed
by, that the very temple in question (6 13) had been erected by
a man whose sympathies could not be termed-in any sense of
the term-Jewish by conviction (see I S RAE L, $ 88). A rather
ancient reading which adds, after 'nation' (Zevw) in Lk. 23 z
'and destroying the law and the prophets' (rai ra.rd6ovra ~ b :
v6pou K a i T O ~ Fwpo++as)-is found not only in some Latin
MSS hut also in Marcron.
2 The greater prominence assigned to the temple in Stephen's
oration is due historically to the fact that Jesus, to whom he
appealed as his authority, had-once at least-spoken more
explicitly upon the cultus than upon the law, and intrinsically
to the fact that the one involved the other. Since the exile ' the
cultus was hut a portion of the law, to he minutely maintained
no doubt, hut maintained because the law ordained it. God's
glory and Israel's were realised, not in the temple-worship, hut
in the fulfilment of the law of which that worship \vas but a
part' (Montefiore, Hi66eri Lect. 387). Notice that if Lk.
omits Mt. 17 24-27 he also omits Mt. 13 6. On the early Christian
conception of God's spirituality and the universalism it implied,
see Titius, Die aulrtire Anschauung =ton der SeZigkeif i m
Urchvist. 8j: (IF).
153 4789
STEPHEN
resented his looser attitude as bitterly as a Roman
procurator's public insults. Like one of their number,
who afterwards recanted, they were shrewd enough to
anticipate disastrous consequences to Judaism, if such
liberal ideas prevailed (Gal. 113f:).
In its extant form the speech put into the mouth of
Stephen is, like the other addresses of Acts, the com-
4. The speech : position of an author who possesses
considerable historical insight into his
its nature. subject ; the diction, style, and general
standpoint of the address are sufficient to show its
Lucan colouring and ability (cp 1316-41,and the fre-
quent analogies to Lk. 1-2, Acts748=1724, etc.). In
the nature of the case, too, it is impossible to think of
hearers taking down a verbatim report, or of the author
having access to such archives of the court as furnished
later martyrologists with graphic and accurate details
of a Christian's last defence and struggles. But, from
the verisimilitude of the contents as a whole1 and the
points which differentiate it alike from Petrine and from
Pauline speeches, it is plain that the source drawn upon
by the editor, to say nothing of such oral traditions (from
Paul and other eye-witnesses, like Philip) as may have
reached him, mnst have sprung from the vivid memories
of some early Christians, possibly Hellenistic refugees
at Antioch or Czesarea; judged on the principles of
comparative historical criticism, the speech therefore
takes high rank as substantially exact. It is not
difficult to suppose that so memorable a death-
memorable for its consequences to the early church, as
well as for its intrinsic details-made an exceptionally
deep impression upon contemporaries,2 and that this
impression passed rapidly into some literary shape.
Certainly the speech, as it stands, does not give one the
impression of an unpremeditated reply, and (as many
scholars have noticed) it hardly lies in line with the
historical situation presupposed, even when the latter is
critically analysed. But though the report is probably
inadequate, it echoes an impromptu survey of history
delivered from a familiar position. Elaborate rather
than extempore, yet with gaps for all its elaborateness,
it is an outline or authentic summary, representing in
all likelihood ideas often repeated by Stephen in his
synagogue-preaching as he encountered objections urged
by people who, in ostentatious reliance upon the
authority of Moses, found the rejection of Jesus by his
nation an insuperable barrier to faith in him as the true
Messiah, and also cavilled at his attitude towards the
ancestral law and teniple of the land. The speaker
does not seize the occasion to preach repentance to the
audience. Nor doen he even attempt to clear himself
specifically from the charges brought against him, being
sensible from the first that the case was hopeless. His
aim is to say all he has to say,3 and he manages to do
this 'by giving a reading of history in the light of
religious experience-a light that is intensified as the
speech proceeds, and hurriedly closes with a flash of
lightning.
In several details of this speech, as elsewhere, Acts illustrates
1 ' I n psychological truth it has not its like in all Acts ' (Spitta,
rr7). At the same time this long speech, the longest in the
whole book, is evidently meant and (less evidently) arranged hy
the author to suhserve the general apologetic motives of the
volume. The writer's sense of the situation and the literary
ability he displays here are the kind of evidence which makc s
it not irrelevant to say that Acts is 'the only one of the IiT
books which anyone would think of calling clever' (W. H.
Simcox, Eady Church H i s f o y , 41).
2 I t is certain, however, that Stephen died under the stones.
The narrative lends no support to the idra (Wendt) that be
recovered (cp 14 193) in time to breathe hls last among pious
Christians who heard him repeat his testimony. The devout
men who buried him were, in all likelihood, respectable Jews
uho had littl: or no sympathy with the fanatical excesses of
their fellowatizens.
3 Con5onant with the Lucan idea of Lk. 21 13, where the
sense of Rlk. 1 3 9 is altered into that of arrest giving ar.
opportunity for witnessing to the gospel.
4790
 BTElPHEbT
tbe midrashic tendency which had already embellished OT
stories with rabbinic modifications and en-
6. Midrashic largements (see CHRONICLES, 6, HISTORI. s
elements. CAI. L ITERATURE , $8 14f:). No significance
attaches to the apparent confusion of Horeb
and Sinai ( y z g x , cp Ex.31: MIDIANS INAI ) the use of the
round number 4" in v. 6 (as occasibnally ig Josephus) the
divergence between 729 and Ex. 2 14f: (cp Heb. 1127) the ioose
version of z S. 7 zf: in Acts 746 and of Ex. 1 16 22 in A;ts 7 19. or
the alteration of 'Damascus' into ' Babvlon' (v. 41). Other
variations and innovations 1however aremore &rib&. Thus
(a)in 7 z the theophany t d Abraham'is antedated (as by Philo
and osephus), nor can an interpolation (Blass, St.KY. 1896,
4 6 0 A be suspected ; (6) Terah's initiative is ignored and his death
antedated in 7 4 (as in Philo : see rabbinic traditions cited by
Hamburger on this point) :(c) Jacob's family is numbered (v. '4)
not after the .Massoretic (7o=Gen. 46 27 Ex. 15) but after the
@ text (75 : known already to Philo) ; (4 Shechem is confused
(v. 16) with Machpelah in Hebron and all the patriarchs-
instead of Joseph only-buried at h c c b e m (perhaps a Lucan
home-thrust [see GOSPELS, 5 1091 a t the contemp;t felt by rigid
ews for the Samaritans : see Lk. 9 51f: 10 33 17 I I ~ Acts : 18
a curious divergence not only from the OT narrative hut
even from the tradition followed by Josephus who buries them
all at Hebron ( A n i ii. 8 2 ) : (e) 7 m 20-24 are tinged with the
ewish legends (MOSES, 68 zoA), current also in Philo and
h osephus, upon Moses' beauty eloquence (in contradiction to
x.4 .of:), wisdom, and m a r t h prowess, v. 25 (acquitting
Moses of rash violence and making his chivalrous interference
the first step in the deliverance) being reproduced from the
tradition in Philo, Vit., Mos. 18f: and Jos. Ant. ii. 9 Z J ; cf)
the rabbinic division of the lawgiver's life into three eriodi of
forty years each, is followed in m. 23 36 : (g)the ' k e d Sea
(v. 36) is an Alexandrian tonch(Wisd. 10 18 197 I Macc. 4 z Heb.
11zg), taken evidently from Ass. M o s r S 'nonne hoc est
quod testabatur nobis turn Moyses in profetiis, qui multa passus
est in &gypto et in mari rubro et in eremo annos uadraginta' ;
(h) the association of angelic agency with the l a w (7 36 53),
though free from the depreciatory spirit of Gal. 3 29 Heb. 3 2,
etc., is like them (cp Everling, Diepuul. A n dologic, 61-65)
due to the rabbinic development of Dt. 33 2 d (c Jos. Ant.
xv. 5 3) : and (i) the citation from Amos in vu. 4 z ~ r e p r c d u c e s
the mistranslation of an obscure and corrupt original (cp AMOS,
ti 13, CHIUN,MOLECH~ f I), Stephen arguing-in opposition to
the normal and traditional view-that while the wilderness
period had its divine means of grace (v. 4 ) it wa4 yet a period
of idolatry and apostasy punished by the & h e .
Such phenomena, though quite minor in importance, indicate
a speaker or an author who is drawing upon hi6 memory of
popular religious tales and has been trained in the spirit of
that Alexandrian Judaism which for all its reverence could sit
wonderfully free to the letter and even the traditions bf the OT
records.
In his brilliant and skilful address (72.8 9-16 17-43
44-50 51-53),- I
Stephen urges one or two extremely
B. Contents. effective &d apposite arguments, which
amount to a counter-accusation against
his opponents. In the opening sketch of patriarchal
history, which is quite in keeping with the senten-
tious and discursive style often affected by Orientals
in unfolding some grave issue, the speaker is mainly
concerned to explain the origin of the covenant and
promise which culminated in the Mosaic legislation
and the Solomonic temple. But he manages indirectly
to express his personal reverence for God (611,cp
7 2 55) and the temple (613, cp 77). as well as the
common ancestry of Jew and Christian alike ( P U T
father, 7 2 , cp 12. etc., also Lk. 173). Then comes the
development of two leading ideas : one already sug-
gested, the other novel, yet both showing his desire to
justify himself by an appeal to the original basis and
trend of O T revelation. ( u ) Charged with depreciating
1 The use of 6r~hquiu (38, cp 8 I 3) is deliberate. The author
hints at the normal position of the earlyChfistians. who never
dreamed of founding a sect hut of continuing and developing
the ancient people of God-to whom thay served themselves as
lineal heirs.
2 C p Rom. 9 4 ' Israelites, whose is the glory [Acts 7 21 and
the covenants [cp Acts 7 81 and the givin of the law [Acts 7 38 531,
and the [divine] service [Acts 7 71 and %e promises ' [Acts 7 51-
(,'IupuqA?~=~,+y 6 S/&u, sat a b 6 r 5 h i ~ a b .rai 6 vo+drub, *ui
q harpsla K U U~ Lmuyydiur). The allusion to theother prerogative
of the 'inheritance' (6 xAqpovo@ia Acts 7 ) is too incidental to
afford any basis for a theory (Bacbn) whici regards this section
in the speech as an attempt to show the Alexandrian spiritualis-
ing of the territorial 'inheritance' into a nos-local worship
(Lk. 173.75). 7 5 is answered by 7 45. Ste hen does not, like
the author of E#. Bum., s iritualise 'the inferitance' by deny-
ing any local material fnlkiment of it ; he merely a r ues that,
however real, the local and national culmination o t i t in the
history of Israel was not final, implying that its fulfilment lay
in the far future (cp Heb. 4 I& 8-11).
4791
STEPHEN
the temple, he argues (40-43 44-50) that neither law nor
temple had come until comparatively late i n the
national history, the temple in fact only in Solomon's
reign ; yet, previously to that, the spiritual ;evelation of
God had been carried on in foreign lands (for Abraham,
v. 2, Moses, V Z J . 30 33, and Israel, v. 38). Even the
temple itself, as the prophets testified, formed no
adequate or absolute medium for such a spiritual
revelation (the tacit inference being, of course, that it
could not therefore be any blasphemy or treachery to
OT religion to assert, as Jesus had done, that even the
temple was not indispensable or final).' And as for the
law ofMoses ( b ) , with its divine vitality and power (to
which, answering 6 13 f:, Stephen does ample justice,
38 53), not only had it, like the temple, been preceded
by revelations (e.g., of circumcision), but its founder
had been misunderstood (7 25 Lk.2 so), rejected, and
thwarted by the very people (in Egypt 24-35, in the
wilderness 36-39) to whom God had sent hiin as ruler
and redeemer. Thankless, perverse, and obtuse :
such had been their nature all along. Hence their
failure to welcome Jesus with his authority and creative
power to establish a new and final form of worship
which should correspond to the ideal of the OT. This
resistance. so far from being loyalty to religion, spelt
both unfaithfulness and disaster to it, representing
indeed a conservatism to the letter and the form of
religion which the fresh and fuller current of the spirit
would leave stranded. Moses predicted that the
Messiah would be a second Moses, and Stephen
argues vehemently (in quite a characteristic Lucan
fashion, cp Lk. 1629 J 2427 f: Acts 2 8 2 3 , etc.) that
the true observance of the Law would lead its devotees
to Jesus ( S I -53) : real loyalty to the Law and the
prophets culminates in Christian faith, the line of con-
tinuity running from the O T prophets to the gospel of
Christ. Whereas, he grimly suggests, Jesus had been
indeed a second Moses : his rejection, due to the same
obstinacy and rebellions spirit (SI f:)that Moses and
his successors' (sa) encountered, is really a proof of his
genuine Messiahship. In short, the argument ends with
a flashing retort. Stephen hurls back the charge of
disloyalty on his accusers, implying, in characteristically
Alexandrian and yet also in OT fashion, that the Jewish
1 Stephen's reference to the Solonionic temple is curt and
cool but intended to depict its relative worth rather than its
ut& incompatibility with OT religion. His point, driven home
by the citation from Is. 68 ~f:,is that God is not bound to the
temple in Jerusalem, but free to reveal himself in wider and less
external ways : compared to the spiritual worship of God given
by esus ( I 8), even the temple service is merely another
golden calf? f t b obvious that, in a book circulated after
70 A.D., this line of a r ument would be specially a t, proving
that the destruction o f t h e temple was no irreparagle loss to
religion.
2 v. 37 is of cardinal moment to the a r ument ofthe speechin
its extant form, since it destroys the yewish claim that the
Mosaic cultus and legislation were final. The prophet-Messiah
as a second Moses, nt least equal to the first in authority mus;
have the right t o supersede or transcend previous revelhions.
True, the Jews had rejected him whom Stephen claimed as the
true Messiah. But that was no decisive argument against him,
for they had done the same to the first Moses. Thus, although
u. 37 has all the appearance pf a parenthesis or editorial addi-
tion o f Lk., even sn it would only sharpen an idea already
present in the original and (like 6 XI) reflect a correct reading of
the rimitive source.
350 the L u c w addition (7 I?) 'and wisdom' rai oo+iav (,cp
z d = Lk. 2 40 52 (Bncon)? The idea dominates the CZelnentznc
Rec0gnition.s (e.@, 136). Cp Acts3 134'7 35 (Lk. 6 z i t ) . Of
course the.MessiFic interpretation of t. 18 sf, repro uced in
Acts 737 IS a misap lication of the original sense, which refers
not to aiindividual gut to a succession or order of prophets in
Israel.
4 Why the prophets (42.5z)P Because W R S OTIC agq$)
they had vainly hut vi orously proteste6 against the' formal
tendencies of OT piety w%ichwith the temple became crystallised
into et more ceremonial wnrshi Without pronouncing the
estahxshment of the temple itselpa fresh token of the nation's
sensuous bias, the speaker plainly hints that the Levitical ritual
had thereby acquired a fatal prominence which tended to
obliterate that s iritual worship for which the rophets stood.
and to produce t i e further effect of rendering $e worshippers
incapable of estimating God's better and spiritual revelation.
4792
 STEPHEN STEPHEN
rejection of Jesus was an integral part of the sensuous violence was illegal-has failed to notice it. The fairest
temper and esternalism with which they had all along solution of the critical problem is to suppose that
been blind arid dull to the spiritual significance of the Stephen perished in a fanatical riot, the account of
Law and the prophets.l Circumcision they had had ; which ended with 82. The editor, however, has added
but it had brought no moral devotion (8, 58). Prophets not merely SI,$, 15 but also 758 816, 3 to the original
they had had ; yet only to disbelieve and persecute (37 source, drawing in the latter interpolations upon a
42 48 52). -4spiritual and heavenly law (Xbyra @ V W , tradition which was no doubt accurate.
‘ vim vitalein habentes,’ Blass) they had received ; yet The editorial hand, or a different source, in at least
only to prove unfaithful to it (38f.. 53) by turning it 758 8 18,3 is widely recognised-e.g. by Bleek, Weiss
into a dead letter. (adding 7 5 5 596~). Clenien, Sorof, Kruger ( TLZ
As we possess only an epitome of the speech, it is 1885, 299). Wendt, Hilgenfeld (adding 56, 59).
useless to inquire whether an. 5 1 - 5 3 ~imply some Schmiedel ( A C T S , § IO), Moffatt (HistoricaZ New Test.,
,. Acts 754-83, interruption on the part- of the 429, 431,667-670), and Bacon. Originally the source
angry audience, now awakening to ( s 8 J ) ran ‘ they stoned Stephen,’ etc. ( & 1 9 0 p 6 h 0 ~
the speakcr’s drift, or-whether some part of the source T O Y ZT&+UVOYK.T.~.) ; the insertion of 586 left ‘ stoned’
has been omitted by the editor (Schwanbeck). The without an object, and necessitated its repetition
words are abrupt and final. This curt, stinging thrust, awkwardly in 59. Again 8 1 a is obviously parenthetic,
which formed the climax of the harangue, roused a whilst 8 3 repeats the proleptic 8 16 c unless the latter be
heat of anger in the audience which, at Stephen’s also excised (as by Weiss and Schmiedel). It is plain
further blasphemous cry (561, passed into a scream of that Stephen died, not on the testimony of witnesses
horror. Nothing is said about any formal conviction ( 6 1 3 7586), but on account of his own recent word and
before the Sanhedrin. The offender is simply stoned confession. The references to Saul, which are quite
to death outside the city-the regularmethod and place authentic, link the source to what follows, and it is
of punishment for blasphemy (Lev. 2414-16, cp Lk. 429). needless to dwell on the dramatic effect 1 of this silent
For the Jews to put any criminal thus to death upon figure watching the opening struggle of a campaign in
which he himself was presently to play so diverse and
their own responsibility was utterly illegal (cp Jn. 1 8 3 1 ) ;
and the difficulty of the story is enhanced by the prominent a p a t 2 A similar result in general is
absence of any explicit evidence to show that a year or reached by those who bisect the w-hole narrative-e.g.,
two after the death of Jesus Roman authority in the Feine ( 6 1-6 12-14 72-21 29-34 44-50 57J 8 1a 3 with 6 II 15
capital was seriously relaxed, or that -as afterwards 7 2 - 2 8 35-43 51-53 54-56 59J 816-z), Jiingst (69 f. IZC-14
(61. 62 A . D . ) at the murder of James the brother of 71-21 29-34 44-50 586-60 816 c , with 61-6, 7b c-8 I I 15
Jesus-an interregnum between two procurators was 7 22-28 35-43 51-58a 8 ra 2-3), and Spitta (6 1-6 g - n a 72-54
taken advantage of, or that the sentence of the 57-58a 816-2, with 67f. 726-15 7 1 5 5 J 58b-60 8 r n 3), or
Sanhedrin was formally connived at, if not ratified, by less radical investigators such as BIass ( 7 596. a Lucan
by the Roman officials. At the same time, the broad touch) and Rainsay ( 7 58 8 I , Lucan touches reproducing
unquestionable fact that the Jews proceeded to persecute Paul’s agonised confession when Philip narrated the
the Christians without hindrance, whilst the Christians episode, 69-8 39, at Czesarea). If one is disinclined to
not merely fled from Jerusalem, where the Roman follow those who (Spitta, J. Weiss, Hilgenfeld. etc.)
power was strong, but never had recourse to the civil adhere to the substantial integrity, as to the’historicity,
power as a shield against their tormentors, suggests of the speech, the most tenable alternative is to consider
that the Jewish authorities must have had some sauctiou that it represents a single source more or less edited
or other for their outburst, although the historian- (€3. Weiss, Wendt, Holtzmann) : it is quite in keeping
\\ishing perhaps to convey the impression that such with the author’s practice in the third gospel (Wernle,
1 Stephen makes no attempt to explain the cause of this Synoptischc Z;vagle, 18,cp 146) to deal more freely with
obduracy. H e seems toregard it as innate. In E t . Barn. 9x> narratives than with discourses in the traditional
where the allegorical interpretation of the Mosaic customs is materials which lay before him.
propounded as their original sense, the failure of the Jews to The chief linguistic terms characteristic of 6 143 (especially
apqrehend this is attributed to the influence of an evil angel in the speech), which do not recur elsewhere either in Acts or in
(euo$c<w ahodc) and to their la se into idolatry. Stephen’s the reSt of the NT literature, are :-‘defend ’ t&pdvm ( i 24) ;
speech, upon the other hand (as gabatier rightly points out), is ‘murder,’ t b c i p w r c (8 1 ) ; ‘resist,’ t&mdm;w (7 51); ‘uncir-
a t once the complement and the development of Jesus’ parable
in Lk. 2OgJ As a historical retrospect it is unduly severe;
hut as a word for the immediate situation of the speaker it 1 The whole story is full of admirable effects produced by an
posiessed a telling force. The thought of 7 SIXis remarkably author who could write effectively as well as piously ; e g . , the
in line (cp 0. Holtzmann, Leden / e m , 336) with Lk. 13 34f: literary art shown in the sonorous opening of the speech:
(cp 11 491, where Jesus speaks in the name of God, who has dramatic touches like the glow of 6 15 ‘ they understood not
repeatedly sent messengers to the Jews, and finally the Messiah ‘ andkept if not,’ and ‘ befPIZnsZee?”(contrasting this death
onlv to meet the same fate. See E’. Barn. 5 II ‘So the Son & with the three already mentioned, viz., Judas, Auanias and
Goa came in the flesh in order that he might sum up and com- Sapphira), the vision of 7 59 with Jesus sfandins (not ‘sit&
plete the sins of tho5e who persecuted his prophets to thedeath.’ zs usual) to welcome his martyr (cp Rev. 56), the contrast of
2 Stephen does not go nearly as far as Ef.. Barn. (46-8)which Stephen’s denunciation and his forgiving spirit, and the
flatly denies that the Jews possecsed the real law of God : ‘ours oratorical handling of the various themes in the harangue.
it is, they lost it’ by the idolatrous aberration mentioned in 759f: seems to echo a helief that the spirits of the dead
Acts 7 39-41. H e distinctly upholds the living authority of the (especially the martyrs) passed directly to God : cp Titius, 45 ;
Law (in contrast to Paul, Gal. 3 21); only, whilst E?. B a n . Schur. Hist. ii. 2 I&.
141-4 denies that the Jews ever cot this divine covenant, 2 See P A U L , 0 7. Mommsen (ZiVW, 1901,85fi), taking ;v 73
Stephen argues that they got it and failed to keep i,t (Acts 7 53). river pou (Gal. 114) in its local sense (=birthplace, c p Acts 426
So 4 E4d. 1 4 2 9 3 from the Jewish standpoint : our fathers 8 2 14). considers that Paul directed his attack upon the separa-
received the law of life which they kept not, which ye also have tists(inc1udingc.g. Andronicus and Junias? Rom. 167) in Tarsus;
.
transgressed after them also Acts 15 IO.
3 Lucan close to o r i g h (&so), Holtnnann Z W T (1865)~
which gives a godd sense to Gal. 1 2 2 but hardly fits in with
Acts 8 3 9 IJ In afamous passage (E& on ‘ Secret Societies,’
434.435. McGiffert finds in them the theme of the speech, viz., Works [1863] 6 285-289) de Qqincey discusses the uneasiness
that temple-worship is not enough, demanding obedient and and fascination stirred by such martyrdoms in some of the more
spiritual hearts among the worshippers. But there is nothing thoughtful spectators and argues that the radiant countenance
distinctively Christian in such an attitude. of Stephen ‘bringidg down to earth some revelation of a
4 Though this finds no support in the words ‘ I gave my vote,’ brightness in the sky, the fountains of which were intercepted
xanjveyyo +j+ou (26 IO), whlch are merely a rhetorically vivicl to Paul, perplexed him ; haunted him sleeping, troubled him
expression of agreement (8 I). Paul was not a member of the
Sanhedrin.
.
when awake. . . Upon this we may be sure that Paul brooded
intensely and that the noonday scene on the road to Damascus
6 Consonant with his usual tendency to emphasise the Jews did hut 4uicken and ante;date a result which would at any rate
as the real enemies of the faith and to avoid blaming the have followed in the end. [Cp col. 4081$] The psychologica1
Roman authorities. The first martyrdom of Christianity was nexus, alluded to in this passage, is reflected in the narratives of
brought ahout by false evidence and tumultuous justice on the Acts, and probably formed one of the suhordinate aims which
part of the Jewish authorities(as 12 IJ, etc.), and betokened no the writer had in view as he fused the Stephen-source and the
collision of the Roman authorities with the ncw faith. Pauline tradition together. See further below.
4793 4794
 STEPHEN
. .
cumcised.’ t&reoirunros (7 41): ‘mash,’ tSp6rw (7 94): come
I
‘ new faith only served to accelerate the extension of that
after ’ &r&iop;r (7 45) ; umpkereT’t8rraunjs
8. Linguistic (7 27’35) ; 1 expose,’ eK@€TOF (7;g) ; I coming,’
features of ZAruurr (7 52) : ‘thrust out 2 & d d o (7 45
narrative. [27 3911): ‘beyond,’ t & & d (743) ; ‘daily;
ra6’qpe tvdr (G I ) ; ‘ ill-usage,’ tra’rours (7 34) ; authorities for the first time (within a year or so of the
‘deal craftily,’ trarauo&’&.car (7 19); ‘possession, tKara’q6mc
(7 5 45: ; ‘ lamentation,‘ t r o m r d r (8 2 ) ; ‘ ravage,’ Aupaivopar
( S 3) ; redeemer,’ thurpwrrjs (7 35 ; cp Heb. 9 12 Lk. 168 2 38) ;
remove,’ tperorri<o (7 4 43) ; ‘ make a calf,’ p o q o r o i d w (7 41).
.
‘ neglect,‘ rapdmpdw (6 I) ‘ corn,’ u i r i o v (7 12) ; ‘ stiffnyked,; of Jesus himself. Hitherto these distinctive principles
t rrAqporpbmAor (7 51) ; ‘stir up,’ U U ~ K W ~ W(6 12) ; bury
‘
u v y ~ o p l < o(8 a ) ; set at one,’ mvdha’uuo (7 2 5 ) ; ‘slain beast::
tr+a‘yrov (742); ‘suborn Qro@a;\Aw (6 I;) ; ‘sustenance,
ty6pTaup-z (7 TI); ‘ buy,’ ’t&viopai (7 16) ; appeared,’ t&+@ expressed.
>f sudden human appearance 726). Of these 31, no fewer
than 18 (marked t ) come from 6 e L X X or Philo a fact which
(especially as the citations are loose and unintentid.nal) corrobor-
ates the impression of Hellenistic or Alexandrian colour.1
Even more remarkable is the absence of such distinctively
Lucan traits as dv with optative, S i ral, 6y6vero with infinitive,
Iv ~iwith infinitive, ~ djpdpav, ’ r a i a i d s , bv&a?t, r.2~ (8ras)
i,Aak, TLC with a noun, and r b or 78 before prepositions.
At the same time, the Lucan phraseology of the passage
shows that if a written source underlies the record it has been
worked over2 by the editor: see the following favonrite or
characteristic Lucan traits (words peculiar to Lk.-$cts marked
with an asterisk)-‘holy,’ i y ~ o r(6 13 7 33); ‘bring, 2yw (6 12) ;
[ivciyw741]‘ ‘bringup ’*bvaipd+w(720); ‘men brethren,’??pw
b?eA$al (7 2 ; ; ‘look sieadily ’ arcvi3o (6 15 7 55); ‘till,
(718) ; ‘and there arose,’ Iy&o (?:$\
6.‘ (8 ;); ‘hahe,’ flpd+or
ministry,’ S i u o u i a ( G I 4); ‘o,pen, Sravoiyo (75:); cut,
*Srarpio (754); ‘scatter abroad *8raureipw (8 I); arrange,’
Srara‘uuw,(744); ‘just,’ *Sr.aiop (Messianic title, 3 14 752 22 14);
‘seventy, *GflSopjuovsa (7 14). sipi with dative (7 5 44) ;
d r e v S i (7 I 33) ; ‘ expose,’ * I K T ? @(721) ~ c ; ‘before,’ IV&HLOV
(6 5f: 7 46) ; ‘ the following [day],’ “sir & 0 6 q [jpCpql (7 26) i is one thing, however, to approve a course of action,
‘in &os, days,’ i v rak jpdpars radrarc (f I ); send forth,
I&mroudhhw (7 12). ‘year ’ &or (7 6 34 z ) devout,’ *dAap$s
z ) ‘find grace,”&pim? X & ~ P L(746 V Ek.;l30, cp Heh. 416);
‘8rejoice,’ &+pa+ (7 41) ‘ come upon ’ I + b n ) p r (6 12); ‘having
kneeled down, Beic sh’ ydvara (7 60’ cp Lk. 22 41) ; ‘ named,
‘
: d o 6 p s v o s (7 58) ; behold,’ raravodo (7 31, cp Heh. 3 I 9 24);
famine,’ Arpds (7 11); ‘after these thi?gs,’ psrh iairra (7 7);
‘summon,’ *percrxa’Aeo (7 14); ‘month, prjv (720); ‘younp
man,’ *veavias (758); vopi<o=suppose (725=Lk. 244); now,
v i b ( 7 4 3 4 5 ~ ) ~‘house
; of Israel,’ &o~,’Iupa$A (742); ‘with
oneaccord, opoBupa86v (757); ‘sight, Bpapa (731); BP in
attraction (716f: 45); ‘at the feet, Tap& rods rr6das (758);
rA+r (6 2 g=community, Deissm. Neue BibeZsturZien, 59);
‘multiply,’ d p v o (61); ‘except,’rAX.iv (S I ); ‘full of the
[Holy] Spirit drjpqs rxw. [d low] (6 3 5 7 55); ‘ avenge,
*rors;v I ~ S i ~ q b TWOS iv (Lk. 18 7f: Acts 7 14); ‘betrayer, rpo-
L ;.nls (7 52 Lk. G 16 2 Tim. 3 4 only); ‘ show before,’ *rporaray-
yCAAo ( i 5 z ) ; ‘go before,’ ‘rrporopaliw (710 Lk. 176); ‘unto,’
zpp6s, of speech $73); ‘word, ;<pa (611); ‘host, “urparia
(742 LF.2’3); kindred,’ *UY dvrra (7314 Lk.161); m’u
g 35); seize,’ *uuvapprL<o (6 r z r ‘Tpprove,’ ~ V ~ U S O (8 K ~I );W it by the enemy, but not as yet patent to the mind
‘stop,’ UUY.‘XXO (757); ‘deliverance, u w r q p i a (7 2 5 Lk. 171);
m (6 7 12 7 26 8 3) : ‘ of forty years,’ *rfuufparovradnlr (7 23, cp
1318); 705 with infinitive (719); roirrov=him (735, cp 223
5 I); Qra’ o (75j); ‘[the] Most High,’ *[&Iii$.ruror (T48, cq
$. ds.
132 7 I): ‘voice,’ +wvr) with yiyvopar (731); keep,
+uAa‘uuo (753 cp Lk.1128). widow,‘ Kfpa (61); ‘region,’
~ d p a(SI); k L w h e n ( 7 a 3 ) ; &si(615), impf. yith ptc. (81);
besides the proper names like ‘ Libertine, *hrfleprrvoc
‘
‘ Chaldean ’ Xd8qios; Hellenist ’ ‘EAAqvror$s; and ‘ Rephan
Pc+av ; the‘ phrase ‘ Son of Man ,’ (7 56= Lk. 2269, almost only
use of name outside gospels), 1 9 = 5 17 (Clem.Rom. 4 x ) ; the
conce tion of Jesus as the prophet like Moses (737, cp 3 2 2
and Ek. 7 16 39 16 29/: 24 27) Acts 7 27 = Lk. 12 14 ; ~ K O ~ C L V versies-out of practical exigencies due to the unlimited
with ptc. (712, cp Lk.4f3) ’Acts61o=Lk.2115 Acts7zz=
L’i. 24 rg-‘preserve alive too oveialkr (Lk. 17 33 Acts 7
T Tim. 613, only); ‘visit,’ f a L d $ a d m r (7 23, cp Lk. 1 7 8 7
and one instance of the Lucan partiality for Is. 40-66 (Acts 7 47J;
149
as in Barn. 16 2 with i j r i c for rai aoior and odxi for ya’p).
The significance of this eDiSode for earlv Christianitv
9. Significance is thus twofold. It fo;med one df
those outstanding crises when, as the
of episode. historian of Acts loved to show, the accounts
fanatical and malicious opposition of Judaism to the
1 Peculia: to Hebrfws and Lk.-Act: (includipgActs 6-8 3) are :
‘ goodly a u r a o s . star,’ dwrpov ; custom, ~ 6 ’ 0 s (except Jn.
1940) ; ‘ p g in,’ kua‘ e i v e d a r (except Jn. 18 16) ; ‘trembling
for fear, r‘vrpopor ; J e d Sea Epu6’$ BbAauua ; ‘devout,
tlrAa&jp (group); ‘ h e that beardrul?’ j y d p s v o c (except ,Mt. 26
citation) ; ‘rest ’ rarara6cw -01s ; change,’ or ‘remove, pera-
rr8hvar (excepr j u d e 4) ; sojourn -er, r a p o d w -oc(literal sense):
‘ patriarch,’ r a r p r l p x q s ; hand of God(except I Pet. 5 6) ; ‘ made ‘inimicus homo’(L?., Paul), Clem. R e c o p . 1 7 0 3 , like Hege-
2: erporoiqrop of temple (except Mk. 14 58). See also
?a;qd&b. 8 2-5.
a This is perhaps betrayed also in the occasional roughnesses
of construction-e.g the change of subject in 4 (‘removed,
p e r & m f v ) 8 (‘begay’ 6 dvvqusv) and IO (‘made,’ Kardurqueu),
tho;gh Wiiss goes tdo Jar in t a k n g passages like IOC-16 and
19 1-23 u,26-29, 3 6 J , as editorial additions inserted in view of
Lk.’s Gentile-Christian audience.
4795
STEPHEN
faith to the Gentiles. Rut, further, it was an epoch when
persecution broke upon the Church in general as well
as upon individuals, owing to the fact that the Jewish
Crucifixion-;.e., 30-31 A. D. )realised l the radical con-
sequences of the gospel as preached by more outspoken
Christians, who could appeal honestly to the authority
of Christianity, with their far-reaching issues, had been
tolerated mainly because they had not been adequately
Hence the fitful and comparatively in-
effective attempts of ‘the authorities to keep the new
movement in check, as well as the general popularity
enjoyed by the Nazarenes in Jerusalem. The twelve
lacked neither courage nor sincerity. For various
reasons, however, they do not appear to have shown
anything of the same insight into the tradition of
Jesus which they preserved, as outsiders like Stephen,
Philip, and Paul. Upon men like these fell the brunt
of the advance which had to be made, if Christianity
was ever to be anything more than a Jewish sect. With
the spiritual freedom and universal range of the new
faith, as urged by Stephen and others, the twelve
probably were in essential sympathy ; indeed there is
every reason to suppose that Stephen carried the
majority (yet cp 21 2 0 - 2 2 ) of the church, willingly or
reluctantly, with him in his outspoken statements. It
another and a nobler thing to start it. All credit for
the more difficult step, with the wisdom and courage
which it involved at this period, is due to Stephen,
whose stand had a further liberating effect -hardly
contemplated by himself-of forcing the early Christians
into a consciousness of their real relation to the orthodox
Judaism, side by side with which most of them had
hitherto lived in peace. The break had to come,
although as yet both sides had been for different reasons
slow to disturb the status ‘There is an inner
freedom which may grow side by side with an allegiance
fostered by birth and custom, prejndice and piety.
But men first become conscious of this freedom when a
demand is made that restricts it, or when it is assailed
on account of some consequence already deduced from
that cherishes it’ (Weizslicker). Such a n awakening
came to early Christianity at the martyrdom of Stephen.
H e first expressed a latent antithesis of principle,
grasping the gospel of Jesus with a thoroughness and
penetration which enabled him to formulate certain
questions, afterwards elaborated differently yet along
the same line by one who had been an accomplice in
his murder. This is all the more remarkable. because
the stimulus originally came not-as in later contro-
preaching of the gospel, but entirely from the inward
fidelity of one man (who had not belonged to the
original disciples) to the principle of religious freedom
in the spirit and sayings of Jesus.3
The dependence of the Stephen-narrative upon several of the
best authenticated portions of the Synoptic tradition (for the
Johannine see Wendt’s Le,& Jew [ET] 2 3 jx) has been
already nAed ;4 the general similarity of sivera1 details in the
-~
of his death and of the trial of Jesus (e.g., Lk. 22 66=
1 One early tradition, followed by Usuardns, Petavius, and
other medieval and later scholars, put Stephen’s martyrdom in
the same year as the Ascension.
2 As the subsequent history, down to the third century,
shows, there was a recurring tendency to gravitate hack into
Judaism on the part of certain Christian circles (cp Harnack‘s
Dqpengeschichte, E T 1294,9.
3 In its account of the persecutions conducted by that
sippus, ignores Stephen ; James is for Hegesippus the proto-
martyr, though in Eus. HE v. 2 5 Stephen reappears as the
model witness of Christ.
4 I t de ends upon the critical view taken of Jn. 421.24,
whether &at passage be regarded as a later expansion of the
idea suggested in Acts 7 48x, or as embodying a genuine logion
of Jesus (cp Jn. 2 19-22) to the effect that only spiritual worship
in his name answered to the true ideal of the OT revelation.
4796
 STEPS
Acts6 12) is not unnatural in a historian who is concerned to
describe how loyalty to the authority and ideas of the great
proto-Martyr brought one of his followers to a like fate. Such
conformation was inevitable, though it is not easy to determine
how far it was conscious and literary. It is distinctly curious
however, that false witnesses and an allusion to Jesus’ sayink
about the temple should be introduced here by an author who
deliberately omits both facts from his narrative of Jesus’ trial.
and also that the authentic-saying on the Cross (Lk. 2 3 3 4 a t - 1
which does not form part of the original third gospel (see H i s t .
New Tesi. 654)-should be reflected in Acts 760 (cp Lk. 6 28
Acts3 17 13 q ) , just as it was actually’quoted by the brother &
Jesus at his martyrdom (ZO8q~e TA y6uaTa he‘yov APLE Be6 1~Lr.p
d+cs ahsois’ oV$p o l l a m TZ‘ nwouuiv, cp % z),.and by the Lyons
martyrs (Eus. E V. 2 5). There is one very significant change
however, in Acts 7 59 (= Lk. 23 46), emphasised h the precedini
words ‘calling upon,’ & L K ~ O ~ + W O V (sc. ‘I8qvo;vf The similar
parallels between Stephen and Pant (6 13=2l28 69=212127
cp 3412) are of no literary significance whatever, nor i;
Stephen’s speech a literary expansion of certain Pauline ideas.
For, whilst criticism has learned to do justice to the powerful
impression (see above; also R. H. Hutton’s TheologicaiEssays,
3 1 8 5 , and Feine, Das Geseizesfreies Euang. des Paurulus, 1899,
pp. 165 8 8 5 ) made by Stephen’s religious consciousness upon
Paul, Stephen cannot be described as a forerunner of Paul
without serious limitations. In Stephen an original element
worked like a ferment, which differentiated him not simply
from his leading contemporaries, but from the line subsequently
followed by Paul. The very occurrence of similar ideas-e.g., in
Rom. 9-11 (Acts 7 52 = I Thess. 2 1 4 5 , see Origen on Mt. 1357)-
is one of several proofs that such ideas were widespread in
certain circles of early Christianity, and the points of difference
are upon the whole more tangible than the points in common
between the two men. Paul was not interested in the cultus-
question at all; Stephen was. Vet Stephen never raised the
question of the Gentiles,l as Paul did from the first. Nor did
he like Paul in general view the Law as superseded by grace ;
in ’Hellenistic fashion itephen traces a spiritual current through
Jewish history, believing that a proper interpretation of the
Law, and obedience to the spirit, would have saved the Jews
from their ancient lapses, even from the culminating lapse a t
the crucifixion. Per contra, as has been already indicated
(88.3, 6), Stephen had not advanced to the position which in later
writers may be termed distinctively Alexandrian.
The scanty and worthless legends upon Stephen, collected
by Tillemont (Mimoires; Eng. ed. 1735, pp. 353-359)! main1.y
cluster round the placeand time ofhisdeath, and the findingofhis
relics. According to one tradition of the fifth century, he was
buried, thanks to the friendly intervention of Gamaliel at Kafr
Gamala in presence of the lamenting apostles. Hi; festival
seems to have been held generally on the 26th of December the
day following Christmas ; which occasioned Augustine’s d y i n g
that unless God had first become man to die for men, men would
never have found courage to die for God. Epiphanius ( H e y ,
204) numbers Stephen among the Seventy, and one curious
tradition (followed by Dante, PUP- 15)describes himasa youth.
In addition to the critical editi&s of Acts, ad loc., the mono-
graphs on source-criticism (ACTS, # IT), and various biographies
of Paul see especially *Baur’s Paulus
10. Bibliography. (ET), 1139-62 ; *Zeller’s Contents and
On*n of Acts (ET) 1237-246 2175-176;
Ewald’s Histoy of Israel, ET 7 155-164 ; Gfrorer, Die heilige
Sage (r838), 1408,f: Renan, Les Apbtres, chap. 8 ; Raucb
St.Kr. (1857), 352-368 ; F. Nitzsch, i6id. (1860), 479-502 ; *Wit=:
]DT (1879, 588-606 [finding the red thread of the speech in
748 ./I: W. Schmidt, Bwicht d. Ap.-gesch. *her Sfeph.
(1382); Sahatier, L’ap6tre Paul (ET), 39-46; Pfleiderer, Das
Urchrisienthum (1887), 559J:: Feine, 1PT (189o), 89-108.
Beyschlag, N T TheoZ. (ET), 1 3 2 7 5 ; Ramsay, St. P a d th;
Traueller, 372.377 ; J. Weiss. St.Kr. (1893), 489-501 ; A6sicht,
10.15 ; *Kranichfeld, Sf.Kr. Qcjca), 541.562, ‘Der Gedanken-
gang in der Rede des Steph. ; *E. W. Bacon BibZicarul and
Semitic Studies (Yale Univ., U.S.A., ~goz),’ 211.276~ and
Grieve, Hastings’ DB 4 6 ~ 3 - 6 1 ; 5 Harnack, die Mission und
uer6reitung des Chnkteniums (rgog), 34-37 ; and on the apocry-
phal RmeZaiio sancti S., P. v. Winterfeld ( Z N T W , 1go2, p.
358). The papers by K. Schmidt (Beweis des Glau6ens, 18 2, pp.
69-86); E. H. Plumptre (Bi6Zicd Studies, 347-375), and 36sgen
(Neue K i x h . Zeits. 1898, pp. 661.687) are unduly conservative,
and the older sketches by Krause (1786), Luger (1836), and
Thiersch (1849) have been largely superseded by more recent
critical researches prompted here, as in so many lines, by the
penius of Baur. Adequate materials for historical study may
be found in the monographs marked by an asterisk, supple-
mented by Spitta’s A#-gesch. (1891), q6-123, and discussions such
as those of Weizslcker Das Aposf. ZeitaZter (ET), 162-75, and
McGiffert, Apostolic Age (1897), 76-93. J. Mo.
STEPS (i’l\!J<f2), 2 K . 2 0 1 1 = 1 ~ . 3 8 8 R V ~ g .EVDIAL.
; Phcenician ’; Chrysippus came from Cilicia. Baby-
STEWARD. A convenient and familiar term used for:
I. n*,-iy@~,lit. ‘the man over the house‘; cp Gen.4319
I K. 16 g (see ARZA).
1 One proof that the speech rests on a special source ; for the
idea of universalism was thoroughly Lucan (cp Lk. 24 47 Acts
28 q/r). In 7 42 another comparatively isolated feature occurs,
in the reference of sin directly to providence (Titius, z3J).
4797
STOICS
z. *n*>pab-jl, Gen. 15 2, a difficult phrase, on which see
E LIEZER , I, and cp Dillmann, Delitzsch, and Crit. Bi6. ad lor.
3. jag, Is. 22 15 R V w . (EV ‘treasurer ’), applied to S HEBNA
(4.v.).
4. .J?G,Dan. 1 TI AVw. ; see MELZAR
5- Ye, I Ch. 28 I RV ‘ruler.’ See P RINCE, 3.
6. O ~ K O V ~ ~ Gal.
O S 4 2 RV, etc. Hence O;KOVO+&, Lk. 16 2
s
E V ‘stewardsdip.
7. ~sZ‘rposos,Mt. 208 (of the master of the vineyard) Lk. 8 3
(up CHUZA);see P ROCURATOR.
8. C ~ ~ X ~ X L T ~ Jn. ~ , M E ~ L S8
W O See
28.
~ K ~ , 11.
STEWPAN (D!?’?), Lev. 113sf RVmg.. See COOK-
ING ,9 4 ; cp POTTERY, § 4.
STOCKS. For punishments involving restraint of
the person, see L AW AND JUSTICE, 5 12 (end), and cp
C H A I N S , PRISON.
The word is used to render :
I. n x m ; see col. 3850 (7).
2. DXJ, Prov. 7 2 2 AV; see ANKLETS, col. 171, and n. I .
3. p y x ; see COLLAR, 3.
4. l D , Job 13 27 33 1 1 E V (probably an Aramaic loan-word),l
here mentioned specifically as an instrument for confining the feet.
5. @JAov, Acts 16 24, lit. ‘wood. On the ‘inner prison ’ into
which Paul and Silas were cast on this occasion, see PRISON,
8 I (end).
STOICS ( CTOIKOI [Ti.], CTWIKOI [WH]. Acts1718).
The Stoa was founded at Athens, about 300 B . c . , by
Zen0 ; and many of its distinctive doctrines were added
during the third century by Cleanthes and Chrysippus.
Stoicism was brought to Rome by Panzetius about 140,
and many distinguished Romans learnt its principles
from Posidonius (about 86-46). It was the leading
philosophical school in the early empire; the chief
writers are Seneca (4-65 A.D.), Epictetus (flor. circa
IOO), and Marcus Aurelius (121-180). The Stoic
doctrine was divided into logic, physics, and ethics.
I n logic its most characteristic feature is the search for
a criterion of truth, and the placing of this criterion in
the feeling of certainty. In physics the Stoics returned
to the crude pre-Socratic views, and especial!y to those
of Heraclitus. They were strict materialists, and con-
ceived God, or nature, to he in essence a fiery process.
In ethics, Zeno formulated the end of life as T Nbpoho-~
y o i i p b w s {Gv, ‘ consistency’; but this uas expanded
by Cleanthes into a life consistent with nature,’ and by
Chrysippus into ‘life according to our experience of
what happens by nature.’ Thus ethics was set on a
basis of theoretical knowledge-though the physical
theory does not furnish any very obvious ethical guid-
ance. Virtue alone was good, vice alone bad. Other
things were indifferent-cg., life and pleasure, death
and pain. But of these the former were normally
preferable to the latter-only normally, however, so
that when life was blighted suicide was laudable.
The Stoics were the first to introduce into morals the idea of
law-which is law for man hecause it is the law of the universe.
I n passing from a end ‘ to ‘ duty,’ from ‘ virtue ’ to .conscience ’
they are the forerunners of modern ethics. But in abandonink
the Greek standpoint they fall into rigorism, and set up in the
passionless sage a colourless and uninviting ideal.
It was entirely in a practical spirit that ethics was developed
by the Romans. Seneca dwells chiefly on the wickedness of
man and on the constant war which must be waged against sin.
Epictetus’ teaching is summed up in his maxim C;v&ov rdr
Arr6pv, and that of Marcus Aurelius in the words, ‘ t o be
sufficient unto oneself by doing justly and thereby having calm.
Stoicism owes something of its character to Hsra-
clitus, something to the Cynics, something to the
political indifference of the times. But its preoccupa-
tion with conduct it probably owes to a Semitic origin.
Zen0 came from Cyprus, and was commonly called the
lonia, Palestine, Syria, Cilicia, Phrygia, and the Phce-
nician colonies were the homes of the sect, of which
European Greece produced not a single distinguished
member. Naturally then there are resemblances between
Stoicism and some of the post-exilic biblical writings.
The author of Ecclesiastes had probably a gcncral
1 Cp POTTERY, 5 3 (2).
4798
 STOMACHER STONES (PRECIOUS)
acquaintance with Stoic ideas (see ECCLESIASTES, §§ The first step towards identification of ancient
IO, 13). Some of the apocryphal writings-4 Macc. 'precious stones' is to record what
and the Wisdom of Solomon-display rather more than 3* stones are actually fonnd to have been
this. Seneca has very many sayings which recall the
words of Jesus (especially in the SERMON ON THE gFzTo in use on ancient sites of different
the anciente. ages and countries: as in the table
M OUNT [ q . ~ . ]and
) of the Epistles (and above all those below.
ascribed to Paul). Many of the parallelisms are more From this it will be seen ( I ) that universally the
apparent than real ; but the frequency and closeness of commoner have preceded the more ' precious ' stones ;
those which remain exclude the hypothesis of mere (2)that even quartz and its varieties (chalcedony, sard,
coincidence, and it is almost certain that the influence agate) were not much worked, except in Egypt, until
was reciprocal. Seneca may well have met Christians late Babylonian and Assyrian time; ( 3 ) that really
and heard Christian views at Rome. And Paul must hard hones, such as bevyl, are very rare until the time
have known something of Stoicism, of which Tarsus of Alexander the Great; and (4)that it is only after
was perhaps, next to Athens, the headquarters. Stoicism his time that the wealth of the farthGr East became
would have its attractions for a Pharisee. Paul can available except by accident. For this latter period,
quote the Stoic Aratus (Actsl7z3), and he has at least however, the centre of the Hellenistic jewel trade was
two conceptions which owe something to Stoicism-the in Alexandria : the translators of the LXX were there-
world-wide city of God ( I Cor. 1212f. 27 Gal. 328 Eph. fore most favourably situated for the collection of
2 19 Col. 3 11). and the a h d p ~ e i aof the Christian ( 2 Cor. authentic evidence as to the names of the stones.
610 98 II Phil. 411 13 13). See HELLENISM, §§ 6, IO. It is not to be expected, therefore, that the hiblical vocabulary
W. D. R. will he either copious or recise; or that the Hebrew terms
being of (at lowest) pre-Ilexandrine date, will he found t;
STOMACHER ( ~ J ~ A B IS.
) , 324t. See MANTLE, .
correspond accurately with those of @ for the latter belong to
§ a (9). a period when the influx of gems from 6 e far East had recently
depre&ted many stones which thitherto had been relatively
STONES, FIGURED, AND SACRED. See IDOL, 'precious.' Still more is this the case as between the ancient
§ If.
versions and AV, the vocabulary of which represents a similar
period of acute transition, due mainly to the recent exploitation
STONFS (PRECIOUS) of the sea-routes to farther Asia and to America ; moreover AV's
Vague terms (I I). Hebrew names classified (84). vocabulary seems to be used quite at ranfom-e.<. the persisten;
Uses of stones (0 2). interchang;e of 'emerald ' and carbuncle ; and the use of ' ruhy
Greek names (0 5). for 'coral. RV is equally erratic, but without the same excuse.
Stones known ($ 3). H. Priest's breastplate ((is 6-20).
i. #de% ($ 7). ii. $i+h (0 3). iii. dErt?&?h (0 9). The Hebrew phrases (e.g.,I Ch. 29 2) clearly include
iv. n&hek (I IO).
vii. ZKem (B 14).
v. suppir(( TI).
1%. JZbd ($ .
vi. y~G#hrik(5 mx).
ix. uhhimrilr (I 16).
4. Hebrew all ranks of valuable stones, from 'stones
)
:
I to be set ' and treasured gems to the 'stones
x. iar&J($ 17). xi. &am (B 18). xii. ya/uilcim ($38 12-19). names. of divers colours ' which are coupled with
Result (8 20) Covering of King of Tyre (ij 22).
Kudkad (5 21) Foundations uf New Jerusalem (5 23). 'marbles' (abne &fyiYiS, w ; v q ~ s , d p i o v , rnarmoi
Bibliography (0 24).
STONES ACTUALLY KNOWN T O ANCIENTS
I n addition to the more specific names for (mad d with crosses)
precious stones to be discussed later there occur -
t h i following more general terms :- Quality. Place and Period,

n??' ]?v, '&en yZ&nih, hi0os dpros, Zapis

pretiosus gemma, 2 S.12 30 I K.10 2 IOJ r Ch. 20 z
29 2 z Ch. 9 T gf: and frcq. L&drcih,
1. Vagueness proh. orig. 'heavy' ; cp I Ch. 3 6 ;
then 'rare'; cp I S. 3 I]: cp '>>K
I I
of terms.
y?n, 'a6M &&he:, hieovs &hwro+s, Name and Colour.
Zapides desidera6iLz.s, Is. 5 4 1 2 [cp Pr. 315 8111;
175, '&hen hZx, p d b s ~ ( l p k w v(!), gmrnu gratis- -
sima Prov. 17 8 ; O'U+ Vlg, 'a6nnC miihZ'im [from H h
'fill up'], hieaus e k r;lv yAu$+, gemmas adornandurn
[ornahrm], Ex. 257 359=703s hieous n i s rrhVpSuews,
gemmas, E x . 35 27 ; $95 J':+, 'aha2 pak, hi0ovs mi-
riAovs, [Zu#ides] diversorurn coZorum, I Ch. 292 : the
last-named passage gives several of these phrases to-
gether. See also M A RBLE , COLOURS, and the names of Red-
~~
2

i,:
__-
/
& e 6
8

3
X I X w"

particular stones. Marble .

Porphyry a d F&a;
.... .... x
x
It is only with long experience, and wide Jasper
Garnet .
. .. . . , , .. .. ..
x x ..
knowledge, that the distinction between ' pre- Sard, Carnelian, Agate x x ..
cious,' ' fine,' and merely ' ornamental ' stones Jacinth (zircon) . , .. .. ..
-
becomes established. The majority of the
'precious stones' of the modern world were
unknown in Western Asia, and still more in
the Mediterranean, until Ptolemaic and Roman
times : and even then they were regarded merely
as rare varieties of the commoner stones which
Yeclaw-
. .. . .
Serpentine
Jasper
Cairngorm (Y.
Chrysolite (Peri ote)
Topaz.
GTYCX-
. . .
serpentine and Marble
-
1 1:
x x x
.. x ..
::.. ;. 9
klx x
Porph ry and Felspar.
most nearly resembled them-eg., the many MalacKite . . . ..
x ( xx x
varieties of snnvngfur known to Pliny, which,
even so. do not include the modern ' emerald.' : I:
x ' x ..
.. .. ..
'n'
Natural stones which are in any way re-
markable-for brilliance, coloiir, crystalline form,
2. Uses. or any other property-are prized and
treasured by many primitive peoples ;
eithcr simply for ornament, or, more commonly,
for use as charms (for real or imaginary in-
BZw-
Turquoise
Lapislazuli
Amethyst
SaDphire
... ... ...
. . . fi
__
x x ..
x x x

xixi..
x x ..
fluences) ; as engraved seals (for their hardness -
and resistance to wear) : or as currency (for
their rarity, value in exchange, and extreme
portability).
::I::I::
t Cut acmss the bands, not doq them
4799 4800
 STONES (PRECIOUS)
Parium), and were used simply ‘ t o garnish the house.’
N o hard and fast line, however, can be drawn between
these ornamental stones, and the ‘ precious stones’ in
the stricter sense; and the word S&WJZ in particular,
though it occurs in the ‘ breastplate’ of the high priest,
and is used for the engraved ‘ onyx-stones ’ (AV) on
his shoulders. seems also to be used generically for the
whole category of variegated or brightly coloured stones
(see 8 18. below).
The interpretation of the several names does not
take us much further, except to classify the qualities
for which different stones w-ere prized. Of the
descriptive names : - (u) the majority refer ,simply to
bviZLiinnce and must he restricted to transparent or
translucent stones ; they give no clue as to colour.
I. i ? p , d&+&efh,Ex. 28 I 7, etc., from J‘ flash ’ ; see % 9.
2. p!, ekd& Is. 54 12, from J‘kindle‘ [cp CRYSTAL].
C6 arises
AiOop K ~ U W T ~ A A O U from confusion with n??, &a?&,
’ ‘adpat ‘hot coal ’ for nbphek (5 4 e 2 above) ; upcipaydor
‘ice ’ ; Aq. A. rpvrrauropoir gives the sense ‘kindle by rubbin
-i.e., either ‘polished’ or ‘striking sparks.’ Compare E&.
281416, ‘stones of fire’ (!&-.!.?E, on which, however, cp
C HERUB, 8 z, n. 2, with the Assyrian reference).
3. 1313, kadkad, Is. 54 IZ Ez. 27 36, from .#strike &e‘ ;
hut perhaps=Ar. ‘red,’ or a place-name. C# variable: see 5 21
[and cp C H A L C E ~ N11.Y,
(6) Next come descriptions of colou?: without refer-
ence to brilliance. though not therefore LO be confined to
opaque stones : these names are rare and doubtful.
I. O?k, &?cm, Ex. 381.1. etc., properly ‘red’; Qr aoipbov
(cp Pers. z e d , ‘yellow-led ’) ; hut perhaps a place-name
‘Edomite stone’ ; see 8 7.
2. h W , &%a, Ex. 2819, etc., may perhqs=Ar. ‘red’; hut i s the corru$&2 nawbr ( ~ S ~ I I W T O SEa
more probably a loan-word or a place-name ; see below, 5 IS.
3. D$9, ?:ham, Ex. 28 20, etc., from J‘pale’ = AI. &urn,
or perhaps Ar. musa&lram striped garment’ (Ges.), which if
established would be decisive in favour of a danded stom : or
Ass. S l i m t i , a dark stone from Melubha in W. Babylonia (Del.
WlVB S.V. and Schrader C O m 130 [cp, however, BERYL,
9 41) : br a & . = - n a m e: or ;orrupt ; see ONYX, and # 18 below.
(c) Other names describe qualities M user other than
brilliance or colour :-
I. ”“nu, a&Zdmrih, E x . ZS 19,etc., perhaps From %/‘dream,’
which identifies the stone as the well-known charm against
?ad dreams and drunkenness=@ bpd0uu~m the mod.
amethyst. [But see AMETHYST, end, and H & n e l , A H T
205f: 283.1
2. 1’80. sappir, Er.2819, etc. from J‘engrave’; the
‘ inscription stone ’ par excclZence (Tg. says tbe Tables of the
Law were made of it) ; or perhaps akin to Ass. supur thumh-
nail’ signature--i.c. signet-stone, see II 5. I t is described as
‘ like the body of hca:-en,’ Ex. 24 so ;and Q unr+tpos identifies
it as Zupis lazrli. See S APPHIRE.
3. l’p?, Siimir, Ezek.39, e t c , from <sharp,’ ’hard,’ Eg.
u.s;ner Gg. ap$p~s,Germ. Smirgel, Eng. em-. is not strictly
a ‘ pre)cious stone ’ though translated ‘ diamond ’ in Jer. 17 I
AV, and ‘ adaman;’ in Ezek. 3 g Zech. 7 IZ ; see A DAMANT .
4. &,: y a M / a m , Ex.28 18, etc., from J‘strike hard’ : cp
perhaps &alZritnis’ ‘ flint,’ and Ass. eZmGrf, a hard stone used
for rings and on chariot wheels ( Z D X G , 4 O p ) . [To the
references in FLIXT (p.71.) add ZDMG46 570.1
( d ) Others again are clearly $ace-nams, denoting
the source of supply :
I. kudkad (see a,3, above) for which C6 has x j o p in Ezek.
27 16. I n Is. 54 12, Symm. has K ~ ~ X $ ~ V ~;Ocp V 8 1 .HN37 30
, &ut:b&)(rov (popularly derived from Buv# ‘ finger-nail ’) is
for the ‘ Carthaginian carbuncle,’ and Pesh. karkadnb for fT6.3
in Ex. 25 19 39 12.
2. ilinn!, mi’mdfh, Ezek.27r6 Q papop, Vg. se&um, RV
‘coral,’ need not he a stone a t all. [See CORAL,but cp also
RUBY.]
3. Z6.3 (see 62 above), En.2819 3912 may be the +$o,
‘ Psepho,’ of Strain, 822, Theophr. 34, a i island up the Nile,
S. of MeroE, celebrated for its gems ; but it is perhaps a loan-
word : see below, # 15.
4. $W??, far;!;, Ex. 28 20, etc., cp ‘stone of Tarshish,’ Ezek.
10 9, etC. i see TARSWISH.
5 and 6. ’&iey (‘Rdom,’ set 81,&OR) and &am (see 6 3 ,
above ; sakim, Soiyim ’ in Yemen) may also be place-names.
(e) Finally, several names, which have no clear
significance in Hebrew, are probably Joan-words :-
I. CWk, Zdshcm, Ex. ZS 19, etc., recalls Eg. reshem (Homrnel,
A H T , 283). [For another view see JACINTH.]
4801
STONES (PRECIOUS)
a. ?@, ndphck, Ex. 28 18, etc., has heen compared with Eg.
rn-yk-t and Ass. l u p d k u . The latter is more probable: see
E MERALD, and @ IO below.
3. “!p?, pitdah, Ex. 28 17, etc., seems to be Ass. @ipindu.
The Skt. pita, ‘ pale-yellow,‘ is unlikely ; see TOPAZ, and 6 8
below.
4. SZ66 (see 6 2 , d3, above), Ex. 28 rg may be Ass. sirbu:
but perhaps also Ar. ‘ red ’ ; or the place-name ‘ Psepho,’ see
6 and d above.
5. ?$W:, piiijh&, Ex.28 PO, etc. seems to be Ass. ym&
m j u : and perhaps also=Eg. 4-s-p-d,see S 13 below.
These vague terms [see also PEARL] obviously give
little information ; and in no c a ~ edo we know the
colour of the Assyrian and Egyptian equivalents. If
any conclusions, therefore, are to be drawn from them
at all, it must be by means of the renderings of 6.
The Greek vocabulary may be classified in the same
way as the Hebrew.
(a)BriLZiance is denoted only by &@pat and uptipay60~.
‘dazzling:‘ for b&&h (5 4, a I, ah&),’ and also for S6haG
($3 4 6 3 above), Ex. 289 35 27 396 (c p a p a y i o ,
6. &reek pap&&,
=. and perhaps pappa+iu;8,.
kata is a derivative like It. ssmrralrta and
mum-
Enp. emerald; up. itself may be a corruption
oi biirdkefh above).
(6) $lour gives G ~ K L ~ OMS o, s b npduivos, xpua6npauos and
XpuuoArf3m; cp aoipdrm below (only in NT : from the 6Zuc
flower of that name : the Ind. jacut seems to be a derivative,
like Eng. ]ucinflr).
n p l u ~ v o p(A. b np. for Jdhaln [%4, 63, above], Gen. 2 I Z ; cp
x p u & r p u o s Rev. 21 w), ‘ leek green.’
‘
xpvm5AiBos’(for tarshhh [O 4 , d4, above]), gold-stone.’
9) Other qualities give thy €allowing :-
a&pav.irv& ‘intractable. I n class Gk. =‘steel-like.’ For
4
Mmir ($3 4 E above), fer. 17 I ; c p uzcpia w & p , Ez. 3 9, and
) , 8 9.
,ipd&uvx ‘charm against drunkenness’ ’ for QhLimdh (g 4
c I , above), t i e Greeksupers!ition takin the ;lace ofthe Hebrew:
Kpcpdara)iLOp, *ice’-i.e., crystal. Pn 1s. 54 12 a misreading
of i T p (see p 4, az, above). In Rev. 46 22 I a simile for clear
water ; in Rev. % uorahhi<wri, ‘turning into crystal.’
11, K I
-t *finger-nail &or ~dham[S 4 63 above]. Popularly
sup&d, later, to be descriptive(P1in.’ A d 3 7 aq) ; but probably
a loan-word, see below.
aap86vv-i.e. ‘ sard-onyx’; Rev. 21 zot,but cp Vg. sardanyx
for &%hamLv &xi, Job28 16.
(d)Piade-names are responsible for the following :-
a d q p (=&%a [$ 4, 6 2 , d3,e+]), from the river Achates in
Sicily.
Aryliprov (=/d?em [B 4, e I, aboven, from Liguria in N. Italy.
The descriptive talismanic huypfiprov does not occur in @.
udpS~ov(=‘idemL$ 4, 6 I, ds,above], popularly derived from
Sardis in Lydia : but probably originally a loan - word ; see
below (e).
xah~li&sv(Rev. 21 1st onIy), from Chalcedon in Bithyuia.
Cp Bapusis, pap&, and xcpxop transliterated, and the
rapXpS6vravofSymm. inIs.541~(=kadkad[$4.a3,d1IIauwrs).
(e) Loan-words finally are the following :-
,
&Ilp&hro* (=&am [%(4 6 alovel, ar?d [by error] yriGphPh
[I 4, 8 5 , ahovel, see below?; Pers. dillaur, Skt. vaid4rya,
Prakt. v e d d r ~ a Pesh., 6-7-7u-&a.
laamp (=pi2j%%),Heb. cp Ass. mpu.
adn$scpos ( = s u p f i r [B 4 c z above?) Heb.
uapBrov(=’&+m [a 4, b I,’ d5: above) ihough actually obtained
near Sardis in Lydia, IS probably from’ Pers. zwd ‘yellow-red.’
T O T ~ < L O Y (=jifd&z 10 4 e 3 above] perh. Heb., ~p Ass.
&@in&; but &rived by ’Pliiy (HNd78) from the word ‘ t o
seek ’ in the langnage of the ‘ cave-dwellers ’ of the Topaz-island
in the Red Sea. In Ps.ll91a7 ~ o n d < ~ o v = wd3rov=paz ~b (is),
‘ refined gold ’ ; cp *a< in Cant. 5 I I [on which see GOLD, 5 13;
T OPAZ 8 2 n. I ; UPHAZ].
probably Ass. unku, ‘ring,’ cp kunuku ‘cbnical seal’. cp
Eg. anak (Muss-krnolt, Sem. Words, 139;. The explanahon
suvt=‘tinger-nail,’ occurs first in Pliny, “37 24 (quotin;
Sudines), and is supported by theremote resemblance of a pale
onyx (the black onyx was not worked till late Hellenistic times)
to a finger-nail with its lunula in the flesh beneath. But the
word is as old as Ktesias (ahout 400 B.c.) and may have arisen
from the Assyrian custom of using the impression of the thumh-
nail (supur; seesappir, above) as the signature of a clay-tablet :
6vv$ would then mean ‘ thumb-nail stone’ in the sense of ‘ signet.’
For the interpretation of this Greek vocabulary, we
have fortunately a good and slightly earlier authority in
the treatise of Theophrastus, m p i XiOwv (about 300
B.c.), which sums up Greek knowledge on the subject
just at the moment when Alexander’s conquest had
thrown open the farther East, but before its effects had
become generally felt. For the interpretation of the
 STONES (PRECIOUS)
additional terms added by the Apocalypse, we have
again a nearly contemporary commentary in Pliny, who
represents the abundant materials, but mainly empirical
classification, of the lapidaries of the Early Roman
Empire. That the vocabulary of the LXX is probably
trustworthy, is suggested by the general uniformity of
its rendering. S o uniform, indeed, are these, that in
the four cases in which serious discrepancies occur (see
under AGATE, BERYL, O N YX , and below), it is prob-
ably safe to assume that it is the Hebrew text which is
at fault. The phrases in the Apocalypse, also, display
close acquaintance with current terminology, and supply
more than one striking confirmation of the conclusions
derived from the comparison of M T and the LXX.
We may, therefore, proceed to discuss the identifica-
tions supplied by the LXX renderings. Of these, by
~~
far the greater num&r are contained
6. High priest's
in the description of the high priest's
breastplate. breastplate, Ex. 2817 j,?, to be read
with the parallel passage Ex. 3 9 1 0 8 and the corrupt
variant, Ez. 2813 (the 'covering of the king of Tyre').
I t will therefore be convenient to take these stones in
the order in which they occur, and to append (I zxf.)
those which do not occur in the breastplate.
Two preliminary considerations should be noted.
( I ) The B REASTPLATE ( g . ~ . ) ,when folded for use,
measured a span (about 8 in. ) in each direction. The
space available for each stone with its setting was there-
fore as much as 2 x 24 in. ; and if the same proportion
was observed between stone and setting as was
customary in ancient jewellery, the stones themselves
may have been as large as z x 14in., and cannot have
been much less than half that size. They were there-
fore each a good deal larger than the average size of
the common Babylonian cylinder or Egyptian scarab.
We are therefore probably safe in excluding, on the
ground of sire alone, stones which are really rare and
'precious,' even if these stones themselves could be
shown to have been known. ( 2 ) Each stone was
engraved with the name of a tribe, and some of these
names are of some length. This again postulates a large
surface and low hardness. The private Jewish name-
signets vary from 8-14in. in length, and are of a very
moderate degree of hardness ( 7 or less).
i. 'Odem, udp8tov, sardius, Ex. 2817 3910 (cp Ez.
28 13, and sardius, Rev. 21 20). Both names signify
' r e d ' (see above, $5 4, 6 1 , gd),-and
'' Identification the stone is no doubt the modern
Of s ~ ~ ~ & . o' redT or orange ' sard,' the commonest
of all engTaved stones in ancient
times (cp Plin. H N 3 7 106). The best of them came in
Greek times from Sardis and Babylon, and a fine deep
red kind from Yemen (hence perhaps [cp SARDIUS]
' Edornite stone,' from the proximate source of supply).
The material (translucent quartz stained with iron) is
quite common, and merges in the clearer and lighter-
tinted ' carnelian ' and ' red agate.' As this is probably
denoted by 2.45 bxdrqs (5 IS), it is not impossible that
'&'em may originally have meant the opaque blood-red
jasper,' which is common in early Egypt, was used in
Babylonia and Assyria, and also in Greece, and was
valued as a charm against hemorrhage.
ii. Pitdih, T O H ~ ~ ~ Otopazius
Y , (Ex. 28 17 39 IO, cp Ez.
28 13 ; in Rev. 21 20 r o ~ d f i o vis exchanged with uap86vuf,
*. see below) is identified with Ass. bipindu, a
flashing stone' which recalls the a stones
of fire' in Ez. 281416. and the abni e&&@ in Is. 5412.
The rendering TO&{LOY makes it clear that the LXX
understood bypitdih, a stone which was ( I ) translucent,
( 2 ) yellow. As the modern ' topaz ' was hardly known * cylinders which may be certainly called topaz, but I have seen
before Greek times, and is indistinguishable, except by
1 So F. Petrie, in Hastings'DB, S.V. 'Precious Stones'-a valu-
ableand suggestive commentarybasedlargely upon new material.
* Brit. Mus. Guidc t o Bad. anddss. A n t q . (p. 136) gives both
'emerald' and 'topaz' in a list of materials used for cylinders'
and nos. 27 and 39 in the Babylonian Room are apparently of
variety of base emerald or beryl ('mother of emerald'). Dr.
4803
STONES (PRECIOUS)
its superior hardness, from ' false topaz,' or yellow rock-
crystal, it is possible that the latter is meant. The
T O H ~ J ~ O V of the Greeks was a translucent, golden-
coloured ( X ~ U U O E L ~ &dSa o u d X ~ o v+Pyyos, Strabo, 770),
or yellow-green, stone ( e virenti geneye, Plin. HN
37 B), probably the modern chrysolite,' or ' peridot '.
This was a noble variety of olivine, and consequently
of the yellow ' serpentine ' (Ar. 'aTfafar, ' yellow '), which
was in common use for scarabs and cylinders of all
dates. It is identified by Petrie [and independently by
Cheyne; see GOLD, 8 I b ; OPHIR, I ; T OPAZ, § 21
with the original pitdih; the only objection to this bein-
that dipindu was a ' flashing ' stone. This ' chrysolit:
was found in the Levant, and occasionally in consider-
able masses; but the ancient supply came from an
island (~orrd&osvfuos) in the Red Sea, which was the
monopoly of the kings of Egypt (Strabo, 770; Diod.
Sic. 339 ; Plin. "378 634). Like olivine, 'chrysolite'
is soft and easily engraved-eadem soia nobiiium Iimam
sentit (Plin. HN378).
iii. BZrdketh, updpay8or, smaragduss Ex. 28 17 39 IO
(Ez. 28 13, . . . : but birdketh
- uwipay8os . rsmaraadusl
- I _
changes
'9. Ba6keth. places with yahiiMm [iaspis], cp 5 1; f.
below-) : Rev. 21 20 has udoav8os, sma-
ragdus, in the place of bZrt@eLh, and'Rkv.43 has
tpis ... 6poias 6pduEi uyapuy8lvy. In Ex. 289 3527
396. ufidpay8os translates S&am (Vg. onyx) where it is
used of the high priest's shoulder-stones. Both biirdkefh
and updpaysos originally denote briZZiance only ; e.g.,
Herod. 2 4 4 describes a urfiXq (probably a columnar
natural crystal) upapciy8ou XlOou X ~ ~ T O Y T O &E S V~~KTRS
phyaOos,' 'so large as to give light at night,' but says
nothing of the colour either of the stone or of the
gleam. Of this same ufidpay8os Theophrastus ( 2 5 )
says that it was of the ' Bactrian' variety, Ei p+J &pa
$euB+Js updpay8os, and he adds (24) other instances of
gigantic specimens which came to Egypt, PY 8Ljporo
rap& TOG Baj3uXwvlwv p?auiXPos. but confuses them all
with the ' copper-emerald ' (dioptase) of Cyprus and
Chalcedon (XUXK@WV, Rev. 2120). Now, only two
brilliant stones occur in such columnar uTljXuc-the
'rock crystal,' and the ' beryl.' In favour of 'rock
crystal ' we may quote ( I ) the comparison of the rainbow
with updpay8os in Rev. 43 ; ( 2 ) the statement of Pliny
( H N 37 64), quoted by Petrie (Hastings' DB), that Nero
used a updpay8os to aid his sight-a statement to be
compared with the superstition, which survives, that
better spectacles are made from rock crystal than from
glass ; (3) Martial's association of smaragdus with
adumas (v. 11 I ) ; (4) the probability that hexagonal
beryl in its paler varieties was regarded as a harder and
greenish variety of ' milky quartz ' ; (5) the certainty
that, as early as Theophrastus, a very large number
of stones, all brilliant, and of all shades of green, from
aquamarine to dioptase (XahK@ov), were included
generically under updpay8os.
In favour of e beryl,' on the other hand, are the
following consideration<. ( I ) From Theophrastns
onward the updpay8os was more or less definitely
coZoure&Theophrastus, however, does not say what
colour-and was believed to originate by the action of
water upon green jasper (i'aums, Theophr. 27. see $ 13).
( 2 ) Both the 'beryl' and its deep-green 'emerald'
variety have been universally believed to give relief to
the eyes ; but this was through their restful colour, not
through their refractive powers, and 'beryls' in particular
had already given rise to It. bareZZe and High-Germ.
briLie, before the invention of spectacle-glasses. ( 3 ) The
Budge kindly supplies the further information 'we have no
several in Mesopotamia among the natives' ; he adds that nos.
128 and 679 (of Pehlevi time) are of 'topaz.' In PEFQ, 1g0z;
p. 326, the announcement is made that a fragment of ' emerald
has been found in a pre-historic de ocit at Gezer; but no
authority is given for the mineralo~icaPdeterm~~ation.
1 So MSS. ; see 'Stein (1881). Wiedemann defends the
conjecture p y h w r shining with great brilliancy,' and ascribes
the glow to ancien; use of a phosphorescent paint.
4804
 STONES (PRECIOUS)
kindred belief that ' beryl ' shed a light of its own was
known to Theophrastus (Z.C., 23), and has survived in
It. bri.?zare (Low Lat. bcvilZarex) and Eng. driZZian2.
( 4 ) The probability that updpayhs could be imitated
(+eua;ls up., Theophr. 25) suits the prevailing greenish
tinge of ancient glass better than a quite colourless
stone ; cp, moreover, Rev. 4 6 , Odhaaua irahlvv bpoia
K ~ u u T ~ X X C ~(.5 ) The collocation of K ~ u u T ~ X Xwith
~ SAPPHIRE.]
upapuy6iuy in Rev. 4 nu. 6 3 suggests that after all this
writer distinguished e rock crystal ' and ' smaragdus.'
As to bdrd@th, the probability is ( I ) that originally
it meant the colourless flashing 'rock crystal,' which
was commonly used for engraving, in Egypt of all
periods, in Mesopotamia from the later Babylonian
time onwards, and more rarely in prehistoric Greece ;
(2)that this meaning did not wholly die out even after
the LXX translation was made, but survived in the
use of uphpaysos in Rev. 43, and in the confusion with
yahZ.?~%in M T of Ez. 2813 (see below, 19) ; (3)that
the obvious likeness between the words, and the current
confusion between the hexagonal forms of ' quartz '
and pale ' beryl,' caused the LXX to render bdr@eth by
updpay&s, and provoked the substitution for ydI@hZh
of yahZZ5m in MT, so as to separate what now were
two adjacent green stones.
iv. N:phek, divepat, car6uncuhs (Ex. 28 18 3911); in
Ez. 2813 &vBpat remains, hut niphek [Vg. carbuncuhs]
Ndphek. changes places with suppir [sapphirus]of
11. In Ez.2716 the LXX mistrans-
lates, and Vg. has simply gemmam; Rev. 21 20 substi-
tutes XahK?jc?wv). If ndphek could be identified with
Egyptian m-f-k-t (see E MERALD [end]), either malachite
or turquoise would be meant ; and this is supported by
the equivalent XahK?jc?wu(copper-emerald)of Rev. 21 20 ;
see 23,below. But this identification would ignore the
uniform rendering of both the LXX and Vs. ; and as
divepat (carbunculus) is descriptive and appropriate,
whilst ndphek (probably a loan-word) gives no clue, it
is better to accept the identification of the LXX r i t h a
translucent red stone. This latter, since the ' ruby' of
Ceylon and Burma, and likewise the true ' carbuncle,'
were unknown to Theophrastus (see C ARBUNCLE ), must
denote the large class of red 'garnets' ( ' pyrope,' ' alman-
dine,' etc.), which are found in abundance and of very
considerable size, were known in Egypt from prehistoric
times, were commonly used for signets in Hellenistic
times, and are easily engraved. As to n$&k itself, the
alternative derivation, from the Zupakku of Am. Tab.
202 16 [cp E MERALD , 23,may probably he accepted. Of
the colour of this Zupukku we have no information ; but
we know that it came as tribute to Egypt from Ashkelon
- L e . , from the NE. This fact is compatible with
the occurrence of niphek among the wares sent from
Syria to Tyre in E z . 27 16.
v. Snppir, uda+erpos, sapphirus (Ex. 28 18 39 11) ;
in Ezek. 2813 uda+erpos remains, but sappir [vg.
ll. SappIr. sapphirus] changes places with n a h e k ,
[carbuncuZus] [I I O ] ; Rev. 21 20 has
uda+apa). The true ' sapphire ' (blue corundum) was
almost unknown before Roman Imperial times, and
when known was included, from its clear blue colour.
under 6duuBos2 (see 523, below). The adamas
C j p i u s , which occurred in the copper-mines and was
known to Pliny for its sky-blue colour, was probably
'azurite.' Zda+erpos, on the other hand, is identi-
fied (Theophr. 3 7 ; cp 55, Kdavos mdt'vs, and Plin.
H N 3 7 1 z o 'optime apud Medos'), with the opaque
blue 'lapis lazuli' of Turkestan. and the uknu of
Babylonia and Assyria, which was known also in Egypt
1 The 'oriental emerald ' (green corundum) is in any case out
of the question. I t does not seem to have been known in anti-
quity, and Sanscr. mnrakata apparently a loan- word from
Gk.,suFgests that, when discdvered, it was regarded merely as
a superior variety of rg ' ay6oaos.
2 The only indubital?e description is that of Solinus, see
King, Naf. Hist. of Prec. Stores, q 5 f : ; the earliest specimens
are noted in
King, Z.C. 2 5 j .
4805
STONES (PRECIOUS)
and Greece from prehistoric times, and was frequently
sent i ~ sa present from Babylon to Egypt in the Tell-
el-Amama period. As its Hebrew name implies, it is
easily engraved, and occurs in large enough masses to
make tablets like the ' Tables of the Law ' (acc. to
Targ. ; cp the temple dedication on lapis lazuli, Brit.
Mus. [Depart. Assyr. Antiq.1 ~- No. 91013).
- .. rCp
- .
vi. YahZZim, faoars, iaspis (Ex. 2718 3911) ; in
Ezek. 28 13 i'auars remains, but yahu'lim [Vg. iaspisl
changes places w-ith hir&th-[sm&ag~
12.YahM6m dus] see 9). It is most improbable
and YaiBphGh that yG@hFh ( 5 13) could have so far
in BIT. channed its sinnificance that fauais
should be used by preference to-render yahZZn. [Cp
JASPER, ad3n.I. Either Oaaais, therefore, or yah81i.n
must be transferred to the twelfth place ( 5 IS), and
we have seen reason already (under bdrd&eth, 5 9) to
suppose that ydSiphZh should be restored here, and
yahu'Zim transferred to no. xii. For other reasons
identifying y a h d l m with no. xii. see below, 5 19.
YaS@hZh, which is a loan-word (Ass. yaSp8 ai@,
Eg. 0-s-p-d), gives no clue, save that a@& was large
13. ysgBpheh. enough, and not too hard, to be
emuloved for the roval seal of ASur-
b8ni-pal (Nabunahid stele). That -Oauais, on the
other hand, was ( I ) a dull or opaque stone, is shown
by the combination idoar& Kai aapSiy in Rev. 43 (see
23. below), by the compound terms iaspachates and
iasponyz known to Pliny ( H N , xxxvii. 1 0 5 4 9 3 7 ) , and
by Martial's association of iaspis with sardonychus (v.
111 ix. 6 0 2 0 ) ; and ( 2 ) that it was a green stone is
probable from association with the u p d p a y h of the
Cypriote copper-mines in Theophrastus (27 ; cp iduarc?r
KpvurahhL~ovsr, 'jasper turning into a clear ice-like
stone,' Rev. 21 11) and from its medizval character (see
JASPER). Hut ( 3 ) it had many variants ; among them
a red (fuuars=kadkid Is. 5412, cp Symm. h-apXv66vrov.
cp iaspachates, above), a yellow (fuZna, Virg. An.
4261), and an opalescent, perhaps actually the 'opal'
(opahs, Plin. H N 3721 : .\/Skt. opaha,' stone'). [ C p
JASPER.] All this combines to show that yaf&hZh..
fauars, is the modern jasper ' (opaque massive silica),
and especially its green variety, which is widely distri-
buted, often of considerable size, and easily engraved,
being used commonly for Egyptian scarabs of all periods,
for Babylonian and Assyrian cylinders, and for the seal-
stones of prehistoric Greece (for engraved specimens
from the Syrlan coast [in Louvre], see Ledrain, Notice
Soinmaire des Monuments PkLniciens, Nos. 408 427. ~
432J 437). All varieties of jasper are liable.to occur
together, and are associated, and easily confused, with
the green chalcedony ( ' plasma,' ' prase ' ; the common
'bloodstone' is plasma spotted with red jasper), with
the more opaque varieties of agate, and with the opal
group, which all have practically identical composition.
The green jasper, being the rarest, was not unnaturally
the most prized in antiquity, and gave its name to the
group. As the Cypriote passage (Theophr. 27) shows,
green jasper was not clearly distinguished from the
harder varieties of ' malachite ' and other green copper-
minerals (see § 18, below).
vii. Lk.kSem, Xrydprov, Zipuius (Ex. 2819 3912) ; in
Ezek. 2813, d has oipydprov Kai xpuuiov KaL X q . ; MT
14. Lbem. Vg. omit. ending the list with z d h 6
( a u r u m ) in the tenth place, see § zz.
below (Rev. 21 20 gives Xpuuhrpauos in the correspond-
ing place : see § 23). LdSem, probably a loan-word
(? Eg. reshcm, but cp J ACINTH ), gives no clue.
Ary6pprov was taken by some to be a place-name, and
the stone seems to have been confused with 'amber,'
from its electrical qualities (which are possessed by
several different gems) ; but Theophr. 28 gives Xry-
yodprov ( i t - . X U Y K ~ Sndp6v) with a folk-tale about its
srigin, and a distinction between a clearer and a
darker tinted variety. RV gives 'jacinth' (with mg.,
4806
 STONES (PRECIOUS)
‘ or, amber ’) ; but there is no evidence that the jacinth
was either found in Liguria, or was known at all till
Roman times. Probabiy a clear yellow stone is meant,
like ‘cairngorm’ or ‘false topaz ’ (iron-tinted quartz).
The rendering of Rev. 21 20, ~ p w b ~ p a u o ssuggests
, a
greenish yellow stone, and perhaps serves to differentiate
the adjacent yellow xpuu6XcOos (S 17).
viii. SA%, d x d ~ q s achaies
, (Ex.2819 3912 : in Ezek.
2513 6 has d x d ~ q 6 ~ : M T Vg. omit ; Rev. 2125 in
16. geba. tce corresponding place has 8drtrvOor).
SZb’bd may be a loan-word (Ass. Subu) or
the place-name *e$&, an island S. of Meroe, noted for
its gems (Theophr. 34, Strabo, 822). [Cp CHALCEDONY,
2.1 ’ A x ~ T ~ sa place-name) is definitely the ‘Sicilian
(also
agate.’ Pesh. kai-hednd in Ex. 2819 3912 may be a
corruption of m p x q G h o s (cp Symm. on Is. 54 12,
RadkCd, and 21, below), or of hadkid itself.
( I ) Sicilian stones going eastward would probably travel
For
uid Carthage, ( 2 ) similar ‘agates’ may have been found
in N. Africa, ( 3 ) a Carthaginian ‘ carbuncle ’ is known
to Pliny, H N 379295. What particular variety of
‘ agate ’ (banded translucent silica) was exported from
Sicily is not known : but banded agates, particularly
of the deeper red varieties (approximating to surdonyx
and inspachztes) were in common use in Egypt through-
out (the source here may well have been q q 5 w on the
upper Nile), in Greece from prehistoric times (esp.
common in early Crete), in later Babylonia, in Assyria
throughout, and on the Syrian coast (engraved specimens
in Louvre, Ledrain, Z.C., Nos. 413, 420, 422, 440,
449 red ; 409 white).
ix. ‘Ahlimihih, dpCBuunx, amethystus (Ex. 28.193912 ;
in Ezek. 2813 @ has Ctxd~q9; M T Vg. o m ~ ;t Rev.
16. ,ulam9h. 21 20, CtpkBuuTos). The folklore of the
Hebrew and Greek names identifies
with the modern ‘amethyst‘ (transparent purple quartz).
which was commonly used, and freely engraved in
Egypt throughout (esp. under XII. dyn.), in Greece
from prehistoric times, on the Syrian coast (Ledrain.
Lc. Nos. 407, 414,cp 392, 421). and more rarely, in
Babyloniaaud Assyria. [See also references in 8 4 ( c ) , I.]
x. TarEJ, xpwu6hrBos, chrysalifhus (Ex.2820 39x3 :
in Ezek. 2813 6 has ~puubXiBoshere; and M T ‘Tarshish,’
17. Tariu. Vg. 2rysolithus at no. iv.. see 3 22,
below; in Ezek. lo9 Vg. has chlysolithus,
but 6 iivt?pag [perhaps by identification with the
Carthaginian carbuncle of Plin. HN, 3725, see W 21,
below]; in Dan. 106, Bapueis, chrysolirhus; in Cant.
514 6 e a p a e l s , Vg. hyacinthus; Symm. has SrdKivBos
here and Ezek. 116 2813 ; in Ezek. 116 @ has Oupuels,
Vg. visio maris). TarSiS is simply a trade-name and
gives no clue. XpuubXrBor i s vaguely descriptive. A
stone may be a ‘gold-stone’ in three different ways.
( I ) It may apparently contain g a i n s of gold-e.g.,
‘ avanturine quartz,’ and the epithet ~ p u u b ? r a u ~ oapplied
s green enough (though only rarely and partially trans-
to ‘sapphire’ (Theophr. 23,cp Plin. N N 3 3 3 1 . ‘aurum
in sapphiro scintillat.’ 3738, ‘ aurum punctis conlucet ’).
( 2 ) It may be golden yellow and opaque-Le., yellow
jasper or yellow serpentine. T h e former is adopted here
by Petrie (Hastings. DB,S.V. ‘ Precious Stones ’), and
both were used commonly in Egypt and Babylonia at
all periods, and in prehistoric Greece. (3)It may be
golden yellow and transparent. This would be inartistic
in juxtaposition with the transparent yellow Z&m, Xrylipiov
(3 r4), but would agree better with the later uses of
chrysoZithus, which seems to represent the modern
’ topaz ’ (as fopazius is the modern ’ chrysolite,’ see 5 8 ,
above), and was found of very large size in Spain
(‘ Tartessus ’), Pliny, HN 37 17.Petrie notes that the
topazius of the ancients (peridote) is actually a ‘ noble ’
variety of yellow serpentine, and so may have taken its
place as the Istone of Tarshish’ in course of time;
compare the correlation of fhuris and updpysor
(opaque and clear green) in Theophrastus, 27.
1 For the bearing of this on Rev. 21 20, GdmvOos, see below,
8 2.3.
4w
STONES (PRECIOUS)
The rendering dv8pu: may be a reminiscence of the
Carthaginian ’ carbuncle ’ (Plin. H N 37 z j , see § 21,
below), ‘ ‘Tarshish ’ being taken for Carthage ; and
8dKrvBor similarly may point to either ‘ sapphire ’ or
’ zircon ’ as one of the products of 2u eastern ‘ Tarshish ‘
towards India (see TARSHISH).
[For other solutions of the problem of the Tarshish-stone (to
retain the traditional name), see TARSHISH, S TONE O F .]
xi. &ham, PqpLiXXrov, onychinus (Ex. 2720,onyx, Ezek.
25 73 ; in Ex. 39 x3 b v l i ~ i o v ,onychinus: &pdAA~ov being trans.
ferred c 0 19. osephus too (BJ v. 6 7) gives
18, g6ham. 6vvE A n i for yu~Zldnz,S,; 6AAcov ; but he also
makes S&? and ahlrinzrih ciange places as also
sujjir and yddlc?m [iauarsl. E‘lsewhers also, i&awz’is very
variously rendered in B, by updpaySw, Ex. 28 g 35 27 396 (of
the high priest’s shoulder-stones); AiOoc b rrpdcivor, Gen. 2 IZ ;
A. uapSiov, Ex.399 (same context as 396; perhaps for
upzpdy8ov miswritten upapdpaov, perha s a variant for bvvxrov,
c p sardonyx Job 28 r6 Vg.) . bvvf
I Ch. 2Y a (wiih 5 I uoo~=S&u I“
ob 28 16 ; AiOos b v v ~ 6 c ,
tran)s iterated). Vg. has onyx
or onychinus everywhere ; except Job 28 16, surdonyx, where
6,however, has bwp. [Cp BERYL, $5 4, ONVX.]
Thus the versions everywhere vary between ( a )a green
stone (X1Bor 6 T ~ ~ U I P O S )whether
, clear ( u p d p a y b o s ) of
cloudy (pqpbhXtop),land ( b ) an opaque banded stone
(6vu(, sardonyz ? udpbrov), the rendering adopted in
EV. Between these two renderings we must decide
according to ( I ) the evidence as to !;hum itself, (2)the
evidence as to yahdlim ( M T ydS@hhEh) in xii. (§ 19),
which likewise shares /3qpirXXrov and dvirxtov in 6 , and
has probably contributed to the confusion.
I. The word Sthant has no clear meaning. It may be
a loan-word ( a )from Ass. d m f u . the ‘dark’ or ‘cloudy’
stone, (1) from Ar. ‘pale’ (Ges.), which suits ’onyx’
(see 19,below) or I beryl ‘ (the conimoner varieties,
and the ’aquamarine,‘ not the deep green ‘ emerald,’
u p d p u y b o ~ almost
) equally well, (c) from Ar. musa(z/lam,
‘striped garment’ (see 9 41 31, which, if it were
established, would be decisive in favour of a banded
stone ; or it may be, ( u ) a place-name (cp Ar. So&im
in Yemen), which would not be inconsistent with the
indication in Gen. 212 that S6hnm (Xi80s 6 ~ p d u r v o ~ )
came from HAVILAH(9.v.). It is clear, however (from
passage like Job 29 16 and I Ch. 292, cp Ex. 257 359
3527),either that the word had a wide generic sense
( e , f . , ‘ variegated stones ’), o r that some form of S h m -
stone was important enough to deserve separate mention
apart from ordinary ‘ stones to be set. ’ Moreover, in
I Ch. 292 Soham is coupled with abni pzik, ‘ stones of
pigment,’ which is likewise generic, and here idhum
might well mean ‘ variegated ’ or ‘ striped ’ stones.
Now there is one such stone, not yet accounted for in
our list of identifications. It was common in Egypt in all
periods, obtained from the Sinaitic mine-country, and
used throughout, both solid and a s a ‘stone of pigment.’
It was known to Babylonia and Assyria, probabIy from
the copious Siberian source. At the same time it is
lucent) to be compared with v p d p a y G 0 9 (which we have
seen was regarded by Theophrastus as the ‘ noble’
offspring of the opaque green h u m s ) and still more
with the cloudy ‘beryl‘; and also opaque and striped
enough to be described as a variety of onyx.’ This
stone is the ‘ malachite’ (green copper carbonate) with
its wavy or concentric bands and cloudy (sdmtu)patches
of light, vivid, and dark green, and its occasional
crystalline varieties. It is soft enough, like ‘lapis
lazuli,’ to be easily engraved, and occurs in large
enough pieces to serve as a tablet for a six-line inscrip-
tion like that of the high priest‘s shoulder-stones. If
&am (A. 6 ~ p d u r v w p, a r excellence; cp the later Gk.
~ A u x ~ ~ ‘c marsh-mallow
s, stone’) be identified with
‘malachite’ (the Eg. m-f-k-t, according to W. M.
Muller) the association of Siham with sapPir in Job
28x6 (e6 v q 1 n,ufq(y rrul uam#dpcp) would find a close
parallel in the I pyramids of green and blue s t o m ’
1 Whence Petrie (Hastings, DB, ‘Precious Stones’)concludes
in favour of (I) ‘green felspar,’ passing later into (2) ‘beryl :
cp the argument in favour of the latter S.V. BERYL (q...).
4808
 STONES (PRECIOUS) STONES (PRECIOUS)
which are quoted to illustrate the wealth of Rameses Thus the high-priestly breastplate, as a whole,
111. (Brugsch, Gesch. 596). 20. prir-L,- may be conceived as having
In Greek times, ' malachite,' owing to its compara-
tive softness, and its profusion in Cyprus and other breastrl-'
bources of copper, either ceased to be held in regard,
or was confused with green jasper ( L u a r s ) . Meanwhile, H IGH PRIEST'S BREASTPLATE
other ' striped stones '-namely ' onyx,' ' sardonyx,' and iii. BBrBketh ii. Pitdah i. &em
<banded agate'- came rapidly into vogue, as soon I . ROCK CRYSTAL I. F A L STOPAZ
~ ? R ED JAWER
as the art of engraving through a surface-layer was white: rlcur yellow : clear red : opaque
perfected ; and consequently &zm came to be rendered 2. G KEEN BENYL 2. CHIIYSOI.ITE SARD
green : clear. yellow : char. red: dull.
either by words for ' green ' (pr)ptXXcov, u p d p a y S o r ) o r
by words for ' banded ' (6vlixcov : surdonyx). Conse- vi. [Y&s&phGh] v. Sappir iv. h h e k
quently, confusion arose on the one hand between GREEN JASPER LAPIS LAZULI G ARNET
S&zm (onyx)and its neighbour yahzlcim (which includes green : ojaqur. blue ; opaque. red : crew.
~~

the w-hite-faced ' onyx ' ; see below), and on the other, ix. m1-a viii. &b6 rii. L&em
between &am (green malachite) and yd?&hZh (green AMETHYST R ED AGATE CAIRNCORM
jasper), as soon as yahliMm and ydf@ht% were iuter- purple : clear. red : opaque yellow : clear
changed owing to the ambiguity of b&dketh in No. i. stn3ed. ? CHRVSOYRASE
(see above, 5 9). (Rev.)
dlow-green : dull
2. For the correlative argument from yahdlcim, see
nest 1. xii. rPahU6ml xi. Sdham X. Tariig
YHITE CARNEI.IAN MAIACHITE I. YELLOW
xii. YahZZam (Ex. 28 20 39 13, MT y&"ip&h: Ezek. 28 13. or green : opaque S ERPENTINE
MT &rpkrth)=(~)&p6AArov Ex. 39 13 Josephus (=Vg. 6eryZ- zARNELI.4N-FACED striped. yellow : ojaqzre
Ius, Ex. $8 20 39 13 f 6cnlZus, Ezek. 28 13): ONYX 2. C HRYSOLITE
19. PahU6m. = ( z ) bd;yrov (Ex. 28 13 Ezek. 28 13 c p 5 18 ; white : opaque. yellow: c k w .
Vg. has derylhrs throughout). The trans-
position ofyahdZ8m has been discussed already in 5 12, above or. in order of colours :-
where the L X X Iaams presumes an original y&Zp&h. Fo;
xii. the balance o f textual evidence favours bvliyrov in the .gPaqw clear
LXX, just as it favours fJvpdM~ovin xi. ; and beryllus in Vg. Red
Yellow 1 ' DEhl
T.4~515
1
N~PHEK
PITDAH
may result from the same source as that followed by Josephus. ~~ ~ ?greenish L&hi
Green B ~ R ~ F E T Hstriped
* &HAM
The word yahdzcim seems to be connected with J u h . (later)
'strike hard,' and (possibly) with d&c, &llamiJ, Blue AHLAMAH (purple)
' flint' ( a h p a m e p l a , Job 289, d ~ p b r ~ p' abrupt-
~ ~ , White BAR~KETH*
I I (originally) I
edged,' Ps. 1 1 4 8 ) : with Ass. e l m t h , Aram. ' a h i s ;
and with Greek ' pyrites '-( i.e . , ' fire-striking stone '). One stone remains, which does not appear in the
[Cp F LINT, but also D I AM O ND]. The Assyrian breastplate, but is mentioned in several other passages.
eZm2fu was a hard and probably colourless stone 21. Klldk~d.This is kadkcid (AV ' agate,' RV ' ruby '),
(nowhere either 'clear' or ' brilliant ') which was which & rendered in Is. 54 12 by t'auacs,
used, with gold, to decorate chariot-wheels (cp the iaspis, Symm. KapXvS6vrov, and in Ezek. 27 16 by x o p x o p ,
'stone of Tarshish,' Ezek. 116 [RV 'beryl']) : and chodchod. The word kadkcid may be from Jii strike
~

also alone, for whole rings (Del. ProL 8 5 , H W B .
s . v . ) . What is wanted, therefore, for yakdltm is a
hard stone, colourless or of indifferent colour ; of which
whole rings could be made ; and recognisably akin to
the ' fire-striking stone,' to the hard stone for hammers
and pounders, and to ordinary ' flint' or chert.' The
alternatives are rock- crystal and white chalcedony ;
the one clear or milky, the other milky or opaque.
Both were fairly common, in association with either
quartzite or flint ; but both were rare in their ' nobler'
varieties. Both were used for whole rings, as well as
for engraved seal-stones, in prehistoric Greece, and in
Egypt of all periods; and also commonly for later
Babylonian, and for Assyrian cylinders.
At this point it should he recalled that the etymology
4 finger nail' for 6vuE (3 5) cannot be traced back earlier
than Pliny-Le., among Roman lapidaries, who took over
an apparently Greek word, and gave it its Greek sense,
though it is not at all an adequate description of the
majority of ' onyx-stones.' Meanwhile the compound
uap66uuf shows that to denote a white-and-red ' onyx'
it was the red which must be specified; the white
surface therefore is the essential character of the generic
' onyx.' On the other hand, the etymology, 6vu$=
Assyrian un&, 'ring.' would make &vu.$ an obvious
equivalent for a ' ring-stone,' like elm& or cognate
words-especially as dmKu was apparently colourless,
and 6vuf meant a stone which had a surface, at least,
of ' white carnelian ' or ' chalcedony.' It follows from
this identification that yahdZnt was liable to be confused
on the one hand with bdrt?keth (in the sense of 'rock-
crystal') ; on the other (together with d v u f ) with &am
(in the sense of ' striped stone ') ; and yet again with
yi!@ht?h, when later study had once revealed the many
intermediates (e.g. Pliny's imp-achates, ;asp-my% and
sard-achates, HAJ, 37 54).
4809
fire' (cp Ar. red ') ; but the renderings x o p x o p and
~ a p x q 6 6 v r o v suggest confusion of d and Y ; cp Pesh.
karkednd for 2 b t . [ d x O i ~ ~ pin] Ex. 3819 3912. The
rendering xapX7$6vmv suggests the ' Cartliaginian
carbuncle' of Pliny; and if, as seems probable, a red
stone is intended, the Luircs of Is. 5412 must be inter-
preted as a red, not a green jasper. See Yd?@hPh,
1 3 above, and cp AGATE. RUBY.
For Sdmir ( ' emery ') which is not a ' precious stone,'
and for the descriptive 'ekduh and rd'rnCth, see
above, 5 4.
4 distorted version of the ' high priest's breastplate '
is offered by the ' covering of the king of Tyre '1 in
22. ,covering Ezek. 2813, the individual stones of
which have already been discussed
ofTyre.,
King of above.
In this passage the LXX
repeats its list of Ex. 2817-20, in
the same order, but inserts K a i dp-yfiprov ~d xpuulov
between t a m s (vi.) and hyciprov ( v i ) . This arose
probably through ( I ) a misreading, apryploN for
hlrypION, and ( 2 ) a misunderstanding of the last word
in the list in M T (zMdb=Vg. aurum), which would
be facilitated by the double meanings of both h y . and
$XEKT~OY. On the other hand, M T followed by Vg.
gives only nine stones, and in a new order, as follows ;-
dah, pitdah, yahliZ5m ( = t h e 'first row,' (i.) and (ii.)
of Ex. 2817f., followed by (vi.) interchanged with (iii.),
by confusion of yahdZ5rn and bardketh); then turZf,
&zam, ydC&hZh ( = t h e fourth row' [x., xi., xii.] of
Ex.) ; so that yi2phZh is brought into its right place
at (vi. ) of the present list ( = Zauarr of 6 ) ; then, su;npir,
n&hk, bird&th (=the second row ' of Ex.,but with
sappir and ndphek transposed, and bdrd&h instead of
v u h Z h z ) ; thentihdb (Vg.aurum, 'gold') as notedabove.
1 [Cp C HERUB, 8 2, PARADISE, 5 3, and Cn't. Bi6. where
the text of Ezek. 28 1 2 3 is considered.]
4810
 STONES (PRECIOUS)
These derangements are instructive. That they
represent an old text is clear from Vg. ; but that the
corruption is later than 6 is probable, firstly because 6
follows Ex. 2 8 1 3 8 (the variant dpy. K . xp. being
mainly explanatory of Xty.), secondly, because the
derangements are all explicable on the single sup-
position that they are intended to remove difficulties
which are raised by the identifications propounded by
the LXX.
( I ) The identifications ddem=udp8tov, and nahek=
._
dvBpaE, brought two red stones together. So long as
odem, which is ’red ’ in any case, meant red jasper, it
was opaque, and gal-e a certain contrast. ’Sards,’
however, are often nearly clear. Hence a difficulty,
which was removed by transposing niphek and sappir;
the further difficulty thus created, that the red nophek is
brought next to the red S&i, ~ X ~ T V not S , being felt,
because, as we shall see, the ‘ third row’ dropped out
altogether.
( 2 ) The identification air!&th = updpuy8os had
already brought about the transposition of yEf@hU
and yuhdl5m, so as to separate the two green stones,
and had caused the confusion in the LXX between
6vlixtov and j3t)pliXXrov in xi. and xii. In M T it has
had the further result that 6arJkefh in.the old sense of
a clear colourless stone became interchanged with the
opaque colourless yahdZ5m. Moreover Birdketh, if it
meant updpuy8os, meant ‘green’ ; and Paums was
’ green,’ whereas updpay8os was ambiguous, and
yahiiZim had no special colour. So on all grounds
darlketh went down to (vi. ) and yahdZ5m up to (iii).
(3) Further, to restore y i f l p h i h to its proper place
at (vi.), and perhaps as an alternative method of
separating &‘ern and nbphek, the whole of the ‘fourth
row ’ was interpolated between rows one and two.
(4)Finally and Consequently, the ‘third row’ fell
out altogether ; Z e m , kyliptov, being taken for
qhcupov-i.e. dffliprov KUL Xpuuiov-and confused with
the z i h i b ( =Vg. aurum), which actually ends the
description both in M T and 6.
Another distorted version of the same list of stones is
supplied by the Foundations ‘ of the New Jerusalem,
23. Founds- in Rev. 2119f: Here, as regards the
tions of New order, the problem has been, how to
Jerusalem. adapt the twelve stones of the breast-
plate, in their four rows-of-three, to the
foundations of a ‘foursquare ’ city. The result is as
follows : -
I. taunts uCi?r+srp Xahr*jSov.
11. upCipaySos uapSdvv6 uCips10v.
111. XpvudArBos &p6hArov mrr&<rov.
IV. Xpvu&rpauos ir&ivBos ApIcBvuTos.
Of these rows-of-three, the first row is the second
row of the ‘breastplate,‘ given in reversed order, (vi.),
(v.), (iv.), with xaXK?fSwv for (ntphek) &vOpa: at (iv.).
The second row is the first row of the ‘ breastplate,‘ also
in reversed order (iii.), (ii.), (i.), with uap8bvu( exchanged
for T O T ~ C at ~ O(ii.).
~ The third row is the fourth row
of the ‘breastplate’ in direct order (x.), (xi.), (xii.), but
with T O T ~ ~ ~ Oexchanged
V for uap8bvu( at (x.). The
fourth row is the third row of the ‘ breastplate’ also in
direct order (vi;.), (viii.), (ix.), but with ~puu6rpauosfor
Xtyliprov at (vii.) and irdKtuBos for ~ X ~ T VatS (viii.).
. .. ... That is to say, the ‘ Foundations ’
,l. alll.I are conceived as in the diagram
xii. iv. appended, and to describe them
the writer has started from the
xi. IV. 11. v. angle * between sides 11. and 111.
H e has first described 11. and I . ,
X. Vi. in correct sequence ; but when he
ix, viii. vii. reached 11’. and III., he has
recurred to the traditional order
within each of the ‘rows-of-three,‘ or has perhaps
attempted to work outwards again from his starting-
point at the angle between 11. and 111.
This account also adds several minor points. (I)
481 I
STOOL
The confusion between u a p 8 h u ~and T O T ~ & O ~suggests
that the authority, which is followed, read /3~pLiXArovfor
fibam at no. xi. ( 5 IS), and dvu,$, or uap8bvug for
ynhiiZ5m at no. xii. (§ 19). ( 2 ) The X C L X K $ ~ W Vwhich
takes the place of &vBpaE at no. iv. substitutes a green
gem (’dioptase’ or copper silicate) for the red ‘garnet’ ;
giving some slight support to the discarded rendering
m;f-k-t (‘ malachite ’ ) for n$hek, but confirming the
view that upcipay8os in Rev. does not mean a p e e n
stone merely-for XUAK$GW was itself regarded as a
variety of cpdpay8os. Zpdpay8os here, therefore, may
perhaps still be translated ‘ crystal’ as in its primary
meaning. ( 3 ) The ~puub~ppauos which takes the place
of Xtydptov and is not otherwise found in O T or NT,
belongs, like X U A K T ~ ~ Wand U uap8bvu(, to a more
advanced stage of experience, when intermediate tints
were recognised ; it may represent either a greenish
a chrysolith,’ or, more probably, the opaque applegreen
* chrysoprase ’ (chalcedony tinted with nickel oxide),
which is intermediate in tint between a yellow serpentine
or yellow jasper, and the A M o s 6 rpdurvos (cp ~ U X U X Z T ~ S )
of Gen. 212. The modern ‘prase’ (deepgreenchalcedony)
and its variant the jasper-spotted ‘ bloodstone ‘ were
used for scaraboid gems as early as the sixth century
B.C. in the Levant (e.g. Myres and Ohnefalsch-Richter,
Cyprus M u s e u m Catalogue, No. 4581), but are not
clearly to be identified even in Pliny. (4)The QdKtvBos,
which takes the place of LixdTVs, is similarly mentioned
in OT or N T only here and in Rev. 917, 6aKivBrvos ;
cp Enoch 7 1 2 (of ‘streams of fire’). Pliny (3740)
represents it as a dull sort of ‘amethyst.’ Solinus
describes what is evidently the modern ‘sapphire
(blue corundnm) and says that it came from Ethiopia ;
probably he is thinking of a port-of-exchange on the
Red Sea, and consequently of the true Indian gem.
Later, the meaning expanded, including many different-
coloured varieties (five according to Epiphanius, six
according to Ben ManStir [quoted at length in King,
Nat. Hist. of Prec. Stones, 250&]). But the use of
hyacinthus in Vg. Symm. to render tn&F in Cant. 5 14
(where the LXX has &vBpaE) as well as by Symm. in
Ezek. 116 28 ‘3 (where the LXX has the normal xpuub-
XtBos) snggests that an early use of GdKtvBos may have
been to render the native Indian word which appears
in Arabic as yikzit-this denoting the modern ‘jacinth,’
a a noble ’ variety of ’ zircon ’ (zirconium silicate), which
is a transparent deep-red stone. Now the GdKtvBos of
Rev. 2120 takes the place of a dark-red translucent
stone, iP65, ~ X ~ T V S The . epithet GaKrvBfvous of Rev.
9 17, too, is coupled with rupfvous ‘ fire-like ’ (cp Enoch
71 2 , above, and the equation hyacinthus= &vBpac in
Cant. 5 4 , so that in both cases ‘sapphire’ is out of
the question, whilst the sultry glow of the ‘jacinth ’ is
exactly what is wanted. Moreover, both GdhrvBos and
dxdm~smight very well stand as parallel attempts to
transliterate y i k u t , and the displacement of the one by
the other becomes in every way intelligible.
Other passages in Rev. dealing with ‘ precious stones ’ have
been noted already above-e.g. t a u m s , ~ p v u ~ a M i < o v21 , II
(5 19) ; 7pts 8poros dpa‘uer u p a p a y h 8 4 3 (5 y) i B M a u u a Bahivq
d p m a ~pvmCiAAy 4 6 (5 9). The striking simile 8poros dpo‘ufr
AL9y LLuarS‘ rrai uap8iw recalls the portrait statues of Roman
Emperors and others, in which the raiment is worked out in
hard-coloured stones-a fashion introduced in the last years of
the Republic from Ptolemaic Egypt. J. L. M.
C. W. King Natura2 Hisf. of Precious Stones; Antiglu
Gems (1866); 2. Menant GZyjfique OnintaZe (1883); N. Story
Miskelyne, CataZope&thr Marl60rough
24. Bibliography. Gems (Introduction); J. H. Middleton,
Ancient Gems (‘E?); ?linden Petrie,
‘Precious Stones’ in Hastings’ D B ; urtwangler, Anfike
Gemmen (1900).
STONING. See L AW AN D JUSTICE, 5 12.
STOOL, in z K. 410, represents K D 3 , kissE (Al@poc),
on the original meaning of which word see T H R O N E , I .
On the rimy, Wndyim (RV ‘hirthstooI’), of Ex. 1 1 6 cp
P OTTERY 8 8, and Baentsch‘s note, with the references in
BDB, e v :
481a