Scorpions, Chastising With

Scorpions, Chastising With

skôr´pi-unz. See PUNISHMENTS 3., (17); SCORPION.

Scourge; Scourging

skûrj, skûr´jing (μάστιξ, mástix, μαστιγόω, mastigóō; in Act_22:25 μαστίζω, mastízō, in Mar_15:15 parallel Mat_27:26 φραγελλόω, phragellóō): A Roman implement for severe bodily punishment. Horace calls it horribile flagellum. It consisted of a handle, to which several cords or leather thongs were affixed, which were weighted with jagged pieces of bone or metal, to make the blow more painful and effective. It is comparable, in its horrid effects, only with the Russian knout. The victim was tied to a post (Act_22:25) and the blows were applied to the back and loins, sometimes even, in the wanton cruelty of the executioner, to the face and the bowels. In the tense position of the body, the effect can easily be imagined. So hideous was the punishment that the victim usually fainted and not rarely died under it. Eusebius draws a horribly realistic picture of the torture of scourging (Historia Ecclesiastica, IV, 15). By its application secrets and confessions were wrung from the victim (Act_22:24). It usually preceded capital punishment (Livy xxxiii. 36). It was illegal to apply the flagallum to a Roman citizen (Act_22:25), since the Porcian and Sempronian laws, 248 and 123 BC, although these laws were not rarely broken in the provinces (Tac. Hist. iv. 27; Cic. Verr. v. 6, 62; Josephus, BJ, II, xiv, 9). As among the Russians today, the number of blows was not usually fixed, the severity of the punishment depending entirely on the commanding officer. In the punishment of Jesus, we are reminded of the words of Psa_129:3. Among the Jews the punishment of flagellation was well known since the Egyptian days, as the monuments abundantly testify. The word “scourge” is used in Lev_19:20, but the American Standard Revised Version translates “punished,” the original word biḳḳōreth expressing the idea of investigation. Deu_25:3 fixed the mode of a Jewish flogging and limits the number of blows to 40. Apparently the flogging was administered by a rod. The Syrians reintroduced true scourging into Jewish life, when Antiochus Epiphanes forced them by means of it to eat swine's flesh (2 Macc 6:30; 7:1). Later it was legalized by Jewish law and became customary (Mat_10:17; Mat_23:34; Act_22:19; Act_26:11), but the traditional limitation of the number of blows was still preserved. Says Paul in his “foolish boasting”: “in stripes above measure,” “of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one,” distinguishing it from the “beatings with rods,” thrice repeated (2Co_11:23-25).

The other Old Testament references (Job_5:21; Job_9:23; Isa_10:26; Isa_28:15, Isa_28:18 שׁוט, shōṭ; Jos_23:13 שׁטט, shōṭēṭ) are figurative for “affliction.” Notice the curious mixture of metaphors in the phrase “over-flowing scourge” (Isa_28:15-18).

Scrabble

skrab´'l: Occurs only in 1Sa_21:13, as the translation of תּרת, tāwāh: “David ... feigned himself mad and scrabbled on the doors of the gate.” “To scrabble” (modern English “scrawl”) is here to make unmeaning marks; tāwāh means “to make a mark” from tāw, “a mark,” especially as a cross (Eze_9:4), a signature (Job_31:35, see the Revised Version (British and American)), the name of the Hebrew letter תoriginally made in the form of a cross; the Revised Version margin has “made marks”; but Septuagint has tumpanízō, “to beat as a drum,” which the Vulgate, Ewald, Driver and others follow (“beat upon” or “drummed on the doors of the city,” which seems more probable).

Screech Owl

skrēch. See NIGHT-MONSTER.

Scribes

skrībz: The existence of law leads necessarily to a profession whose business is the study and knowledge of the law; at any rate, if the law is extensive and complicated. At the time of Ezra and probably for some time after, this was chiefly the business of the priests. Ezra was both priest and scholar (ספר, ṣōphēr). It was chiefly in the interest of the priestly cult that the most important part of the Pentateuch was written. The priests were therefore also in the first instance the scholars and the guardians of the Law; but in the course of time this was changed. The more highly esteemed the Law became in the eyes of the people, the more its study and interpretation became a lifework by itself, and thus there developed a class of scholars who, though not priests, devoted themselves assiduously to the Law. These became known as the scribes, that is, the professional students of the Law. During the Hellenistic period, the priests, especially those of the upper class, became tainted with the Hellenism of the age and frequently turned their attention to paganistic culture, thus neglecting the Law of their fathers more or less and arousing the scribes to opposition. Thus, the scribes and not the priests were now the zealous defenders of the Law, and hence, were the true teachers of the people. At the time of Christ, this distinction was complete. The scribes formed a solid profession which held undisputed sway over the thought of the people. In the New Testament they are usually called (γραμματεῖς, grammateís), i.e. “students of the Scriptures,” “scholars,” corresponding to the Hebrew (ספרים, ṣōph^erīm) = homines literati, those who make a profession of literary studies, which, in this case, of course, meant chiefly the Law. Besides this general designation, we also find the specific word (νομικοί, nomikoí), i.e. “students of the Law,” “lawyers” (Mat_22:35; Luk_7:30; Luk_10:25; Luk_11:45, Luk_11:52; Luk_14:3); and in so far as they not only know the Law but also teach it they are called (νομοδάσκαλοι, nomodidáskaloi), “doctors of the Law” (Luk_5:17; Act_5:34).

The extraordinary honors bestowed on these scholars on the part of the people are expressed in their honorary titles. Most common was the appellative “rabbi” = “my lord” (Mat_23:7 and otherwise). This word of polite address gradually became a title. The word “rabboni” (Mar_10:51; Joh_20:16) is an extensive form, and was employed by the disciples to give expression to their veneration of Christ. In the Greek New Testament “rabbi” is translated as (κύριε, kúrie) (Mat_8:2, Mat_8:6, Mat_8:8, Mat_8:21, Mat_8:25 and otherwise), or (διδάσκαλε, didáskale) (Mat_8:19 and otherwise), in Luke by (ἐπιστάτα, epistáta) (Luk_5:5; Luk_8:24, Luk_8:45; Luk_9:33, Luk_9:19; Luk_17:13). Besides these, we find (πατήρ, patḗr), “father,” and (καθηγήτης, kathēgḗtēs), “teacher” (Mat_23:9 f).

From their students the rabbis demanded honors even surpassing those bestowed on parents. “Let the honor of thy friend border on the honor of thy teacher, and the honor of thy teacher on the fear of God” ('Ābhōth 4 12). “The honor of thy teacher must surpass the honor bestowed on thy father; for son and father are both in duty bound to honor the teacher” (K^erīthōth 6 9). Everywhere the rabbis demanded the position of first rank (Mat_23:6 f; Mar_12:38 f; Luk_11:43; Luk_20:46). Their dress equaled that of the nobility. They wore (στολαί, stolaí), “tunics,” and these were the mark of the upper class.

Since the scribes were lawyers (see LAWYER), much of their time was occupied in teaching and in judicial functions, and both these activities must be pursued gratuitously. Rabbi Zadok said: “Make the knowledge of the Law neither a crown in which to glory nor a spade with which to dig.” Hillel used to say: “He who employs the crown (of the Law) for external purposes shall dwindle.” That the judge should not receive presents or bribes was written in the Law (Exo_23:8; Deu_16:19); hence, the Mishna said: “If anyone accept pay for rendering judgment, his judgment is null and void.” The rabbis were therefore obliged to make their living by other means. Some undoubtedly had inherited wealth; others pursued a handicraft besides their study of the Law. Rabbi Gamaliel II emphatically advised the pursuit of a business in addition to the pursuit of the Law. It is well known that the apostle Paul kept up his handicraft even after he had become a preacher of the gospel (Act_18:3; Act_20:34; 1Co_4:12; 1Co_9:6; 2Co_11:7; 1Th_2:9; 2Th_3:8), and the same is reported of many rabbis. But in every instance the pursuit of the Law is represented as the worthier, and warning is given not to overestimate the value of the ordinary avocation. It was a saying of Hillel: “He that devotes himself to trade will not become wise.” The principle of gratuity was probably carried out in practice only in connection with the judicial activity of the scribes; hardly in connection with their work as teachers. Even the Gospels, in spite of the admonition that the disciples should give without pay because they had received without pay (Mat_10:8), nevertheless also state that the workman is worthy of his hire (Mat_10:10; Luk_10:7); and Paul (1Co_9:14) states it as his just due that he receive his livelihood from those to whom he preaches the gospel, even though he makes use of this right only in exceptional cases (1 Cor 9:3-18; 2Co_11:8, 2Co_11:9; Gal_6:6; Phi_4:10, Phi_4:18). Since this appears to have been the thought of the times, we are undoubtedly justified in assuming that the Jewish teachers of the Law also demanded pay for their services. Indeed, the admonitions above referred to, not to make instruction in the Law the object of self-interest, lead to the conclusion that gratuity was not the rule; and in Christ's philippics against the scribes and Pharisees He makes special mention of their greed (Mar_12:40; Luk_16:14; Luk_20:47). Hence, even though they ostensibly gave instruction in the Law gratuitously, they must have practiced methods by which they indirectly secured their fees.

Naturally the place of chief influence for the scribes up to the year 70 AD was Judea. But not only there were they to be found. Wherever the zeal for the law of the fathers was a perceptible force, they were indispensable; hence, we find them also in Galilee (Luk_5:17) and in the Diaspora. In the Jewish epitaphs in Rome, dating from the latter days of the empire, grammateis are frequently mentioned; and the Babylonian scribes of the 5th and 6th centuries were the authors of the most monumental work of rabbinical Judaism - the Talmud.

Since the separation of the Pharisaic and the Sadducean tendencies in Judaism, the scribes generally belonged to the Pharisaic class; for this latter is none other than the party which recognized the interpretations or “traditions” which the scribes in the course of time had developed out of the body of the written Law and enforced upon the people as the binding rule of life. Since, however, “scribes” are merely “students of the Law,” there must also have been scribes of the Sadducee type; for it is not to be imagined that this party, which recognized only the written Law as binding, should not have had some opposing students in the other class. Indeed, various passages of the New Testament which speak of the “scribes of the Pharisees” (Mar_2:16; Luk_5:30; Act_23:9) indicate that there were also “scribes of the Sadducees.”

Under the reign and leadership of the scribes, it became the ambition of every Israelite to know more or less of the Law. The aim of education in family, school and synagogue was to make the entire people a people of the Law. Even the common laborer should know what was written in the Law; and not only know it, but also do it. His entire life should be governed according to the norm of the Law, and, on the whole, this purpose was realized in a high degree. Josephus avers: “Even though we be robbed of our riches and our cities and our other goods, the Law remains our possession forever. And no Jew can be so far removed from the and of his fathers nor will he fear a hostile commander to such a degree that he would not fear his Law more than his commander.” So loyal were the majority of the Jews toward their Law that they would gladly endure the tortures of the rack and even death for it. This frame of mind was due almost wholly to the systematic and persistent instruction of the scribes.

The motive underlying this enthusiasm for the Law was the belief in divine retribution in the strictest judicial sense. The prophetic idea of a covenant which God had made with His select people was interpreted purely in the judicial sense. The covenant was a contract through which both parties were mutually bound. The people are bound to observe the divine Law literally and conscientiously; and, in return for this, God is in duty bound to render the promised reward in proportion to the services rendered. This applies to the people as a whole as well as to the individual. Services and reward must always stand in mutual relation to each other. He who renders great services may expect from the justice of God that he will receive great returns as his portion, while, on the other hand, every transgression also must be followed by its corresponding punishment.

The results corresponded to the motives. Just as the motives in the main were superficial, so the results were an exceedingly shallow view of religious and moral life. Religion was reduced to legal formalism. All religious and moral life was dragged down to the level of law, and this must necessarily lead to the following results: (1) The individual is governed by a norm, the application of which could have only evil results when applied in this realm. Law has the purpose of regulating the relations of men to each other according to certain standards. Its object is not the individual, but only the body of society. In the law, the individual must find the proper rule for his conduct toward society as an organism. This is a matter of obligation and of government on the part of society. But religion is not a matter of government; where it is found, it is a matter of freedom, of choice, and of conduct. (2) By reducing the practice of religion to the form of law, all acts are placed on a paragraph with each other. The motives are no longer taken into consideration, but only the deed itself. (3) From this it follows that the highest ethical attainment was the formal satisfaction of the Law, which naturally led to finical literalism. (4) Finally, moral life must, under such circumstances, lose its unity and be split up into manifold precepts and duties. Law always affords opportunity for casuistry, and it was the development of this in the guidance of the Jewish religious life through the “precepts of the elders” which called forth Christ's repeated denunciation of the work of the scribes.

Scrip

skrip: A word connected with “scrap,” and meaning a “bag,” either as made from a “scrap” (of skin) or as holding “scraps” (of food, etc.). the King James Version has “scrip” in 1Sa_17:40 and 1Sa_17:6 times in New Testament; the English Revised Version has “wallet” in the New Testament, but retains “script” in 1Sa_17:40; the American Standard Revised Version has “wallet” throughout. See BAG.

Scripture

skrip´t̬ū́r (ἡ γραφή, hē graphḗ, plural αἱ γραφαί, hai graphaí): The word means “writing.” In the Old Testament it occurs in the King James Version only once, “the scripture of truth,” in Dan_10:21, where it is more correctly rendered in the Revised Version (British and American), “the writing of truth.” The reference is not to Holy Scripture, but to the book in which are inscribed God's purposes. In the New Testament, “scripture” and “scriptures” stand regularly for the Old Testament sacred books regarded as “inspired” (2Ti_3:16), “the oracles of God” (Rom_3:2). Compare on this usage Mat_21:42; Mat_22:29; Mar_12:10; Luk_4:21; Luk_24:27, Luk_24:32, Luk_24:45; Joh_5:39; Joh_10:35; Act_8:32; Act_17:2, Act_17:11; Rom_15:4; Rom_16:26, etc.; in Rom_1:2, “holy scriptures.” See BIBLE. The expression “holy scriptures” in 2Ti_3:15 the King James Version represents different words (hierá grámmata) and is properly rendered in the Revised Version (British and American) “sacred writings.” In 2Pe_3:16, the term “scriptures” is extended to the Eppistle of Paul. In Jam_4:5, the words occur: “Think ye that the scripture speaketh in vain? Doth the spirit which he made to dwell in us long unto envying?” The passage is probably rather a summary of Scripture teaching than intended as a direct quotation. Others (e.g. Westcott) think the word is used in a wide sense of a Christian hymn.

Scriptures, Search The

skrip´t̬ū́rz. See SEARCH THE SCRIPTURES.

Scroll

skrōl. See ROLL.

Scum

skum (חלאה, ḥel'āh; Septuagint ἰός, iós, “poison” or “verdigris”; compare Plato Rep. 609a): The word is only found in Eze_24:6, Eze_24:11, Eze_24:12, where the Revised Version (British and American) translates it “rust.” The fact, however, that the caldron is of brass and therefore not liable to rust, and the astonishment expressed that the fire did not remove it (Eze_24:12), would seem to point to the preferability of the translation “scum,” the residue of dirt adhering to the caldron from previous use.

Scurvy

skûr´vi (גּרב, gārābh; ψώρα ἀγρία, psṓra agría (Lev_21:20; Lev_22:22)): This word is used to denote an itchy, scaly disease of the scalp, probably any of the parasitic diseases which are known as tinea, porrigo or impetigo. These cases have no relation whatever to the disease now known as scorbutus or scurvy. The name was probably derived from its scaliness, and the old Greek physicians believed these diseases to be peculiarly intractable.

The name “Gareb” is used in Jer_31:39 as the placename of a hill at or near the southeastern corner of Jerusalem, probably from the bare roughness of the surface of its slope at the southern end of the Wâdy er-Rabābi. Another hill of this name is mentioned near Shiloh in the Talmud, and the name is given to one of David's warriors (2Sa_23:38).

Scurvy etymologically means any condition of scaliness of skin which can be scraped off, such as dandruff.

Scythians

sith´i-anz (οἱ Σκύθαι, hoi Skúthai): The word does not occur in the Hebrew of the Old Testament, but Septuagint of Jdg_1:27 inserts (Σκυθῶν πόλις, Skuthṓn pólis (Scythopolis), in explanation, as being the same as Beth-shean. The same occurs in Apocrypha (Judith 3:10; 1 Macc 12:29), and the Scythians as a people in 2 Macc 4:47, and the adjective in 3 Macc 7:5. The people are also mentioned in the New Testament (Col_3:11), where, as in Maccabees, the fact that they were barbarians is implied. This is clearly set forth in classical writers, and the description of them given by Herodotus in book iv of his history represents a race of savages, inhabiting a region of rather indefinite boundaries, north of the Black and Caspian seas and the Caucasus Mountains. They were nomads who neither plowed nor sowed (iv. 19), moving about in wagons and carrying their dwellings with them (ibid. 46); they had the most filthy habits and never washed in water (ibid. 75); they drank the blood of the first enemy killed in battle, and made napkins of the scalps and drinking bowls of the skulls of the slain (ibid. 64-65). Their deities were many of them identified with those of the Greeks, but the most characteristic rite was the worship of the naked sword (ibid. 62), and they sacrificed every hundredth man taken in war to this deity. War was their chief business, and they were a terrible scourge to the nations of Western Asia. They broke through the barrier of the Caucasus in 632 BC and swept down like a swarm of locusts upon Media and Assyria, turning the fruitful fields into a desert; pushing across Mesopotamia, they ravaged Syria and were about to invade Egypt when Psammitichus I, who was besieging Ashdod, bought them off by rich gifts, but they remained in Western Asia for 28 years, according to Herodotus. It is supposed that a company of them settled in Beth-shean, and from this circumstance it received the name Scythopolis. Various branches of the race appeared at different times, among the most noted of which were the PARTHIANS (which see).

Scythopolis

sī-thop´ṓ-lis, si-thop´ṓ-lis. See BETH-SHEAN.

Sea

sē (ים, yām; θάλασσα, thálassa; in Act_27:5 πέλαγος, pélagos): The Mediterranean is called ha-yām ha-gādhōl, “the great sea” (Num_34:6; Jos_1:4; Eze_47:10, etc.); ha-yām ha-'aḥărōn, “the hinder,” or “western sea” (Deu_11:24; Deu_34:2; Joe_2:20; Zec_14:8); yām p^elishtīm, “the sea of the Philis” (Exo_23:31); the King James Version translates yām yāphō' in Ezr_3:7 by “sea of Joppa,” perhaps rightly.

The Dead Sea is called yām hā-melaḥ, “the Salt Sea” (Num_34:3; Deu_3:17; Jos_3:16, etc.); ha-yām ha-ḳadhmōnī, “the east sea” (Eze_47:18; Joe_2:20; Zec_14:8); yām hā-‛ărābhāh,”the sea of the Arabah” (Deu_3:17; Jos_3:16; Jos_12:3; 2Ki_14:25).

The Red Sea is called yām ṣūph, literally, “sea of weeds” (Exo_10:19; Num_14:25; Deu_1:1; Jos_2:10; Jdg_11:16; 1Ki_9:26; Neh_9:9; Psa_106:7; Jer_49:21, etc.); (ἐρυθρὰ θάλασσα, eruthrá thálassa), literally, “red sea” (The Wisdom of Solomon 19:7; Act_7:36; Heb_11:29); yām micrayim, “the Egyptian sea” (Isa_11:15).

Yām is used of the Nile in Nah_3:8 and probably also in Isa_19:5, as in modern Arabic baḥr, “sea,” is used of the Nile and its affluents. Yām is often used for “west” or “westward,” as “look from the place where thou art,... westward” (Gen_13:14); “western border” (Num_34:6). Yām is used for “sea” in general (Exo_20:11); also for “molten sea” of the temple (1Ki_7:23).

The Sea of Galilee is called kinnereth, “Chinnereth” (Num_34:11); kinărōth, “Chinneroth” (Jos_11:2); kinn^erōth, “Chinneroth” (1Ki_15:20); yam kinnereth, “the sea of Chinnereth” (Num_34:11; Jos_13:27); yām kinn^erōth, “the sea of Chinneroth (Jos_12:3); (ἡ λίμνη Γεννσαρέτ, hē límnē Gennēsarét), “the lake of Gennesaret” (Luk_5:1); and (τὸ ὔδωρ Γεννησάρ, tó húdōr Gennēsár), “the water of Gennesar” (1 Macc 11:67), from late Hebrew גּנסר, ginēṣar, or (גּניסר, g^enēṣar; ἡ θάλασσα τῆς Γαλιλαίας, hē thálassa tḗs Galilaías), “the sea of Galilee” (Mat_4:18; Mat_15:29; Mar_1:16; Mar_7:31; Joh_6:1); (ἡ θάλασσα τῆς Τιβεριάδος, hē thálassa tḗs Tiberiádos), “the sea of Tiberias” (Joh_21:1; compare Joh_6:1).

In Jer_48:32 we have yām ya‛zēr, “the sea of Jazer.” Jazer is a site East of the Jordan, not satisfactorily identified (Num_21:32; Num_32:1, Num_32:3, Num_32:15; Jos_13:25; Jos_21:39; 2Sa_24:5; 1Ch_6:81; 1Ch_26:31; Isa_16:8, Isa_16:9). See SEA OF JAZER.

In midhbar yām, “the wilderness of the sea” (Isa_21:1), there may perhaps be a reference to the Persian Gulf.

Sea, Adriatic

ā-dri-at´ic, ad-ri-at´ik. See ADRIA.

Sea, Brazen

brā´z'n. See SEA, THE MOLTEN.

Sea, Dead or Eastern

ēs´tẽrn. See DEAD SEA.

Sea, Former

fôr´mẽr. See DEAD SEA; FORMER.

Sea; Hinder, Utmost, Uttermost, or Western

hīn´dẽr; ut´mōst; ut´ẽr-mōst; wes´tẽrn. See MEDITERRANEAN SEA.

Sea, Mediterranean

See MEDITERRANEAN SEA.

Sea-Mew

sē´mū (שׁחף, shaḥaph; λάρος, láros; Latin, Larus canus): The sea-gull. Used by modern translators in the list of abominations in the place of the cuckoo (Lev_11:16; Deu_14:15). It is very probable that the sea-gull comes closer to the bird intended than the CUCKOO (which see). The sea-gull is a “slender” bird, but not “lean” as the root shaḥaph implies. However, with its stretch of wing and restless flight it gives this impression. Gulls are common all along the Mediterranean coast and around the Sea of Galilee. They are thought to have more intelligence than the average bird, and to share with some eagles, hawks, vultures and the raven the knowledge that if they find mollusk they cannot break they can carry it aloft and drop it on the rocks. Only a wise bird learns this. Most feathered creatures pick at an unyielding surface a few times and then seek food elsewhere. There are two reasons why these birds went on the abomination lists. To a steady diet of fish they add carrion. Then they are birds of such nervous energy, so exhaustless in flight, so daring in flying directly into the face of fierce winds, that the Moslems believed them to be tenanted with the souls of the damned. Moses was reared and educated among the Egyptians, and the laws he formulated often are tinged by traces of his early life. History fails to record any instance of a man reared in Egypt who permitted the killing of a gull, ibis, or hoopoe.

Sea-Monster

sē´mon-stẽr: Gen_1:21 (תּנּינם, tannīnīm), “sea monsters,” the King James Version “whales,” Septuagint (τὰ κήτη, tá kḗtē), “sea-monsters,” “huge fish,” or “whales.” Job_7:12 (תּנּין, tannīn), “sea-monster” the King James Version “whale,” the Septuagint δράκων, drákōn, “dragon.” Psa_74:13 (תּנּינים, tannīnīm), the American Standard Revised Version and the English Revised Version margin. “sea-monsters,” the King James Version and the English Revised Version “dragons,” the King James Version margin “whales” Septuagint δράκοντες, drákontes, “dragons” Psa_148:7 (תּנּינים, tannīnīm), “sea-monsters” the King James Version and the English Revised Version “dragons,” the English Revised Version margin “sea-monsters” or “water-spouts,” Septuagint drakontes, “dragons.” Lam_4:3 (תּנּין, tannīn) “jackals,” the King James Version “sea monsters” the King James Version margin “sea calves,” Septuagint drakontes. Mat_12:40 (referring to Jonah) (κῆτος, kḗtos), English Versions of the Bible “whale,” the Revised Version margin “sea-monster.” In the Apocrypha, the Revised Version (British and American) changes the King James Version “whale (kētos) into “sea-monster” in Sirach 43:25 but not in Song of Three Children verse 57. See DRAGON; JACKAL; WHALE.

Sea of Chinnereth

kin´ḗ-reth. See GALILEE, SEA OF.

Sea of Galilee

See GALILEE, SEA OF.

Sea of Glass

See GLASS, SEA OF.

Sea of Jazer

(יעזר ים, yām ya‛zēr): This is a scribal error (Jer_48:32), yām (“sea”) being accidentally imported from the preceding clause. See JAZER; SEA.

Sea of Joppa

See MEDITERRANEAN SEA.

Sea of Lot

See DEAD SEA; LAKE.

Sea of Sodom (Sodomitish)

sod-om-īt´ish. See DEAD SEA.

Sea of the Arabah

See DEAD SEA.

Sea of the Philistines

See MEDITERRANEAN SEA.

Sea of the Plain (Arabah)

ar´a-ba). See DEAD SEA.

Sea of Tiberias

tī-bē´ri-as. See GALILEE, SEA OF.

Sea, Red

See RED SEA.

Sea, Salt

See DEAD SEA.

Sea, The

See MEDITERRANEAN SEA; SEA, THE GREAT.

Sea, The Great

(הגּדול היּם, ha-yām ha-gādhōl):

1. Names of the Sea:

This is the name given to the Mediterranean, which formed the western boundary of Palestine (Num_34:6 f; Jos_15:12, Jos_15:47; Eze_47:19 f; Eze_48:28). It is also called “the hinder sea” (Hebrew ha-yām hā-'aḥărōn), i.e. the western sea (Deu_11:24; Deu_34:2;, Joe_2:20; Zec_14:8), and “the sea of the Philis” (Exo_23:31), which, of course, applies especially to the part washing the shore of Philistia, from Jaffa southward. Generally, when the word “sea” is used, and no other is definitely indicated, the Mediterranean is intended (Gen_49:13; Num_13:29, etc.). It was the largest sheet of water with which the Hebrews had any acquaintance. Its gleaming mirror, stretching away to the sunset, could be seen from many an inland height.

2. Israel and the Sea:

It bulked large in the minds of the landsmen - for Israel produced few mariners - impressing itself upon their speech, so that “seaward” was the common term for “westward” (Exo_26:22; Jos_5:1, etc.). Its mystery and wonder, the raging of the storm, and the sound of “sorrow on the sea,” borne to their upland ears, infected them with a strange dread of its wide waters, to which the seer of Patmos gave the last Scriptural expression in his vision of the new earth, where “the sea is no more” (Rev_21:1).

3. The Coast Line:

Along the coast lay the tribal territories assigned to Asher, Zebulun, Manasseh, Dan and Judah. Many of the cities along the shore they failed to possess, however, and much of the land. The coast line offered little facility for the making of harbors. The one seaport of which in ancient times the Hebrews seem to have made much use was Joppa - the modern Jaffa (2Ch_2:16, etc.). From this place, probably, argosies of Solomon turned their prows westward. Here, at least, “ships of Tarshish” were wont to set out upon their adventurous voyages (Jon_1:3). The ships on this sea figure in the beautiful vision of Isaiah (Isa_60:8 f). See ACCO; JOPPA.

4. The Sea in the New Testament:

The boy Jesus, from the heights above Nazareth, must often have looked on the waters of the great sea, as they broke in foam on the curving shore, from the roots of Carmel to the point at Acre. Once only in His journeyings, so far as we know, did He approach the sea, namely on His ever-memorable visit to the “borders of Tyre and Sidon” (Mat_15:21; Mar_7:24). The sea, in all its moods, was well known to the great apostle of the Gentiles. The three shipwrecks, which he suffered (2Co_11:25), were doubtless due to the power of its angry billows over the frail craft of those old days. See PAUL.

5. Debt of Palestine to the Sea:

The land owes much to the great sea. During the hot months of summer, a soft breeze from the water springs up at dawn, fanning all the seaward face of the Central Range. At sunset the chilled air slips down the slopes and the higher strata drift toward the uplands, charged with priceless moisture, giving rise to the refreshing dews which make the Palestinian morning so sweet. See, further, MEDITERRANEAN SEA.

Sea, The Molten or Brazen

mōl´t'n, or (מוּצק ים, yām mūcāḳ, הנּחשת ים, yām ha-n^eḥōsheth): This was a large brazen (bronze) reservoir for water which stood in the court of Solomon's Temple between the altar and the temple porch, toward the South (1Ki_7:23-26; 2Ch_4:2-5, 2Ch_4:10). The bronze from which it was made is stated in 1Ch_18:8 to have been taken by David from the cities Tibhath and Cun. It replaced the laver of the tabernacle, and, like that, was used for storing the water in which the priests washed their hands and their feet (compare Exo_30:18; Exo_38:8). It rested on 12 brazen (bronze) oxen, facing in four groups the four quarters of heaven. For particulars of shape, size and ornamentation, see TEMPLE. The “sea” served its purpose till the time of Ahaz, who took away the brazen oxen, and placed, the sea upon a pavement (2Ki_16:17). It is recorded that the oxen were afterward taken to Babylon (Jer_52:20). The sea itself shared the same fate, being first broken to pieces (2Ki_25:13, 2Ki_25:16).

Sea, Western

wes´tẽrn. See MEDITERRANEAN SEA.

Seah

sē´a (סאה, ṣ^e'āh): A dry measure equal to about one and one-half pecks. See WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.

Seah

sē´a (סאה, ṣ^e'āh): A dry measure equal to about one and one-half pecks. See WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.

Seal

sēl (substantive חותם, ḥōthām, “seal,” “signet,” טבּעת, ṭabba‛ath, “signet-ring”; Aramaic עזקא, ‛izḳā'; σφραγίς, sphragís; verb חתם, ḥātham, (Aramaic חתם, ḥătham); (σφραγίζω, sphragízō), (κατασφραγίζομαι, katasphragízomai, “to seal”):

I. Literal Sense.

A seal is an instrument of stone, metal or other hard substance (sometimes set in a ring), on which is engraved some device or figure, and is used for making an impression on some soft substance, as clay or wax, affixed to a document or other object, in token of authenticity.

1. Prevalence in Antiquity:

The use of seals goes back to a very remote antiquity, especially in Egypt, Babylonia and Assyria. Herodotus (i. 195) records the Babylonian custom of wearing signets. In Babylonia the seal generally took the form of a cylinder cut in crystal or some hard stone, which was bored through from end to end and a cord passed through it. The design, often accompanied by the owner's name, was engraved on the curved part. The signet was then suspended by the cord round the neck or waist (compare the Revised Version (British and American) “cord” in Gen_38:18; “upon thy heart ... upon thine arm,” i.e. one seal hanging down from the neck and another round the waist; Son_8:6). In Egypt, too, as in Babylonia, the cylinder was the earliest form used for the purpose of a seal; but this form was in Egypt gradually superseded by the scarab (= beetle-shaped) as the prevailing type. Other forms, such as the cone-shaped, were also in use. From the earliest period of civilization the finger-ring on which some distinguishing badge was engraved was in use as a convenient way of carrying the signet, the earliest extant rings being those found in Egyptian tombs. Other ancient peoples, such as the Phoenicians, also used seals. From the East the custom passed into Greece and other western countries. Devices of a variety of sorts were in use at Rome, both by the emperors and by private individuals. In ancient times, almost every variety of precious stones was used for seals, as well as cheaper material, such as limestone or terra-cotta. In the West wax came early into use as the material for receiving the impression of the seal, but in the ancient East clay was the medium used (compare Job_38:14). Pigment and ink also came into use.

Sealed Fountain

sēld, These words, applied to the bride (Son_4:12), find their explanation under SEAL (which see). Anything that was to be authoritatively protected was sealed. Where water was one of the most precious things, as in the East, fountains and wells were often sealed (Gen_29:3; Pro_5:15-18).

Sealskin

sēl´skin: The rendering of the Revised Version (British and American) (Exo_25:5; Eze_16:10) for תּחשׁ עור, ‛ōr taḥash, the Revised Version margin “porpoise-skin,” the King James Version “badgers' skin.” A seal, Monachus albiventer, is found in the Mediterranean, though not in the Red Sea, but it is likely that taḥash means the dugong, which is found in the Red Sea. See BADGER; PORPOISE.

Seam; Seamless

sēm, sēm´les: The coat or inner garment (χιτών, chitṓn) of Jesus is described in Joh_19:23 as “without seam” (ἄῤῥαφος, árrhaphos), i.e. woven in one piece.

Sear

sēr: In 1Ti_4:2 for (καυστηριάζω, kaustēriázō), “burn with a hot iron” (compare “cauterize”), the King James Version “having their conscience seared with a hot iron,” and the Revised Version margin. “Seared” in this connection means “made insensible,” like the surface of a deep burn after healing. The verb, however, probably means “brand” (so the Revised Version (British and American)). “Criminals are branded on their forehead, so that all men may know their infamy. The consciences of certain men are branded just as truly, so that there is an inward consciousness of hypocrisy.” See the commentaries

Search

sûrch: Some peculiar senses are: (1) In the books of Moses, especially in Nu, “searching out the land” means to spy out (רגּל, raggēl), to investigate carefully, to examine with a view to giving a full and accurate report on. (2) When applied to the Scriptures, as in Ezr_4:15, Ezr_4:19 (בּקר, baḳḳēr); Joh_5:39; 1Pe_1:11 (ἐραυνάω, eraunáō), it means to examine, to study out the meaning. In Act_17:11, the Revised Version (British and American) substitutes “examining” for the “searched” of the King James Version. See SEARCHINGS. (3) “Search out” often means to study critically, to investigate carefully, e.g. Job_8:8; Job_29:16; Ecc_1:13; Lam_3:40; Mat_2:8; 1Co_2:10; 1Pe_1:10. (4) When the word is applied to God's searching the heart or spirit, it means His opening up, laying bare, disclosing what was hidden, e.g. 1Ch_28:9; Psa_44:21; Psa_139:1; Pro_20:27; Jer_17:10; Rom_8:27.

Search the Scriptures

The sentence beginning with (ἐραυνᾶτε, eraunáte), in Joh_5:39 the King James Version has been almost universally regarded as meaning “Search the scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life.” But one cannot read as far as δοκεῖτε, dokeíte, “ye think,” without feeling that there is something wrong with the ordinary version. This verb is at least a disturbing element in the current of thought (if not superfluous), and only when the first verb is taken as an indicative does the meaning of the writer become clear. The utterance is not a command, but a declaration: “Ye search the scriptures, because ye think that in them,” etc. Robert Barclay as early as 1675, in his Apology for the True Christian Divinity (91 ff), refers to two scholars before him who had handed down the correct tradition: “Moreover, that place may be taken in the indicative mood, Ye search the Scriptures; which interpretation the Greek word will bear, and so Pasor translated it: which by the reproof following seemeth also to be the more genuine interpretation, as Cyrillus long ago hath observed.” So Dr. Edwin A. Abbott, in his Johannine Grammar (London, 1906, section 2439 (i)). See also Transactions American Philological Association, 1901, 64 f.

Searchings

sûr´chingz ((לב)חקרי, ḥiḳrē (lēbh), from ḥāḳar, to “search,” “explore,” “examine thoroughly”): In the song of Deborah the Reubenites are taunted because their great resolves of heart, ḥiḳ^eḳē lēbh, led to nothing but great “searchings” of heart, ḥiḳ^eḳē lēbh, and no activity other than to remain among their flocks (Jdg_5:15 f). The first of the two Hebrew expressions so emphatically contrasted (though questioned by commentators on the authority of 5 manuscripts as a corruption of the second) can with reasonable certainty be interpreted “acts prescribed by one's understanding” (compare the expressions ḥăkham lēbh, n^ebhōn lēbh, in which the heart is looked upon as the seat of the understanding). The second expression may mean either irresolution or hesitation based on selfish motives, as the heart was also considered the seat of the feelings, or answerability to God (compare Jer_17:10; Pro_25:3); this rendering would explain the form liph^elaghōth in Jdg_5:16, literally, 'for the water courses of Reuben, great the searchings of heart!'

Seasons

sē´z'nz (summer: קיץ, ḳayic, Chaldaic קיט, ḳayiṭ (Dan_2:35); (θέρος, théros; winter: סתו, ṣ^ethāw) (Son_2:11), (חרף, ḥōreph; χειμών, cheimṓn): The four seasons in Palestine are not so marked as in more northern countries, summer gradually fading into winter and winter into summer. The range of temperature is not great. In the Bible we have no reference to spring or autumn; the only seasons mentioned are “summer and winter” (Gen_8:22; Psa_74:17; Zec_14:8).

Winter is the season of rain lasting from November to May. “The winter is past; the rain is over” (Son_2:11). See RAIN. The temperature at sealevel in Palestine reaches freezing-point occasionally, but seldom is less than 40ø F. On the hills and mountains it is colder, depending on the height. The people have no means of heating their houses, and suffer much with the cold. They wrap up their necks and heads and keep inside the houses out of the wind as much as possible. “The sluggard will not plow by reason of the winter” (Pro_20:4). Jesus in speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem says, “Pray ye that your flight be not in the winter” (Mat_24:20). Paul asks Timothy to “come before winter” (2Ti_4:21) as navigation closed then and travel was virtually impossible.

Summer is very hot and rainless. “(When) the fig tree ... putteth forth its leaves, ye know that the summer is nigh” (Mar_13:28); “The harvest is past, the summer is ended” (Jer_8:20). It is the season of harvesting and threshing (Dan_2:35). “He that gathereth in summer is a wise son” (Pro_10:5). See COLD; HEAT; ASTRONOMY, I, 5.

Seat

sēt: This word is used to translate the Hebrew words (מושׁב, mōshābh, שׁבת, shebheth, כּסּא, kiṣṣē', and תּכוּנה, t^ekhūnāh), once (Job_23:3). It translates the Greek word (καθέδρα, kathédra) (Mat_21:12; Mat_23:2; Mar_11:15), and “chief seat” translates the compound word (πρωτοκαθεδρία, prōtokathedría) (Mat_23:6; Mar_12:39; Luk_20:46). In the King James Version it translates (θρόνος, thrónos) (Luk_1:52; Rev_2:13; Rev_4:4; Rev_11:16; Rev_13:2; Rev_16:10), which the Revised Version (British and American) renders “throne.” It denotes a place or thing upon which one sits, as a chair, or stool (1Sa_20:18; Jdg_3:20). It is used also of the exalted position occupied by men of marked rank or influence, either in good or evil (Mat_23:2; Psa_1:1).

Seats, Chief

sēts. See CHIEF SEATS.

Seba

sē´ba (סבא, ṣ^ebhā'; Σαβά, Sabá (Gen_10:7; 1Ch_1:9); Greek ibid., but Codex Vaticanus has (Σαβάν, Sabán):

1. Forms of Name, and Parentage of Seba:

The first son of Cush, his brothers being Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah, and Sabtecha. In Psa_72:10 and Isa_43:3 (where the Greek has Σαήνη, Soḗnē), Seba is mentioned with Egypt and Ethiopia, and must therefore have been a southern people. In Isa_45:14 we meet with the gentilic form, (סבאים, ṣ^ebhā'īm) (Σαβαείμ, Sabaeim), rendered “Sabaeans,” who are described as “men of stature” (i.e. tall), and were to come over to Cyrus in chains, and acknowledge that God was in him - their merchandise, and that of the Ethiopians, and the labor of Egypt, were to be his.

2. Position of the Nation:

Their country is regarded as being, most likely, the district of Saba, North of Adulis, on the west coast of the Red Sea. There is just a possibility that the Sabi River, stretching from the coast to the Zambesi and the Limpopo, which was utilized as a waterway by the states in that region, though, through silting, not suitable now, may contain a trace of the name, and perhaps testifies to still more southern extensions of the power and influence of the Sebaim. (See Th. Bent, The Ruined Cities of Mashonaland, 1892.) The ruins of this tract are regarded as being the work of others than the black natives of the country. Dillmann, however, suggests (on Gen_10:7) that the people of Seba were another branch of the Cushites East of Napatha by the Arabian Sea, of which Strabo (xvi. 4, 8, 10) and Ptolemy (iv. 7, 7 f) give information. See SHEBA and HDB, under the word

Sebam

sē´bam (שׂבם, s^ebhām; Σαβαμά, Sebamá; the King James Version Shebam): A town in the upland pasture land given to the tribes of Reuben and Gad. It is named along with Heshbon, Elealeh and Nebo (Num_32:3). It is probably the same place as Sibmah (the King James Version “Shibmah”) in Num_32:38 (so also Jos_13:19). In the time of Isaiah and Jeremiah it was a Moabite town, but there is no record of how or when it was taken from Israel. It appears to have been famous for the luxuriance of its vines and for its summer fruits (Isa_16:8 f; Jer_48:32). Eusebius (in Onomasticon) calls it a city of Moab in the land of Gilead which fell to the tribe of Reuben. Jerome (Comm. in Isa 5) says it was about 500 paces from Heshbon, and he describes it as one of the strong places of that region. It may be represented by the modern Sīmia, which stands on the south side of Wâdy Ḥesbān, about 2 miles from Ḥesbān. The ancient ruins are considerable, with large sarcophagi; and in the neighboring rock wine presses are cut (PEFM, “Eastern Palestine,” 221 f).

Sebat

se-bat´, sē´bat (Zec_1:7). See SHEBAT.

Secacah

sḗ-kā´ka, sek´a-ka (סככה, ṣ^ekhākhāh; Codex Vaticanus Αίχιοζά, Aichiozá; Codex Alexandrinus Σοχοχά, Sochochá): One of the six cities “in the wilderness of Judah” (Jos_15:61), that is in the uncultivated lands to the West of the Dead Sea, where a scanty pasturage is still obtained by wandering Bedouin tribes. There are many signs in this district of more settled habitation in ancient times, but the name Secacah is lost. Conder proposed Khirbet ed Diḳḳeh (also called Khirbet es Siḳḳeh), “the ruin of the path,” some 2 miles South of Bethany. Though an ancient site, it is too near the inhabited area; the name, too, is uncertain (PEF, III, 111, Sh XVII).

Sechenias

sek-ḗ-nī´as:

(1) (Codex Alexandrinus Σεχενίας, Sechenías; omitted in Codex Vaticanus and Swete): 1 Esdras 8:29 = “Shecaniah” in Ezr_8:3; the arrangement in Ezra is different.

(2) (Codex Alexandrinus Sechenias, but Codex Vaticanus and Swete, Εἰεχονίας, Eiechonías): Name of a person who went up at the head of a family in the return with Ezra (1 Esdras 8:32) = “Shecaniah” in Ezr_8:5.

Sechu

sē´kū (שׂכוּ, sēkhū). See SECU.

Second Coming

sek´und kum´ing. See PAROUSIA; ESCHATOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, V.

Second Death

See DEATH; ESCHATOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, X., (6).

Second Sabbath

See SABBATH, SECOND.

Second Sabbath

See SABBATH, SECOND.

Secret

sē´kret: In Eze_7:22, English Versions of the Bible has “secret place” for (צפן, cāphan), “hide,” “treasure.” A correct translation is, “They shall profane my cherished place” (Jerusalem), and there is no reference to the Holy of Holies. The other uses of “secret” in the Revised Version (British and American) are obvious, but Revised Version's corrections of the King James Version in Jdg_13:18; 1Sa_5:9; Job_15:11 should be noted.

Sect

sekt (αἵρεσις, haíresis): “Sect” (Latin, secta, from sequi, “to follow”) is in the New Testament the translation of hairesis, from hairéō, “to take,” “to choose”; also translated “heresy,” not heresy in the later ecclesiastical sense, but a school or party, a sect, without any bad meaning attached to it. The word is applied to schools of philosophy; to the Pharisees and Sadducees among the Jews who adhered to a common religious faith and worship; and to the Christians. It is translated “sect” (Act_5:17, of the Sadducees; Act_15:5, of the Pharisees; Act_24:5, of the Nazarenes; Act_26:5, of the Pharisees; Act_28:22, of the Christians); also the Revised Version (British and American) Act_24:14 (the King James Version and the English Revised Version margin “heresy”), “After the Way which they call a sect, so serve I the God of our fathers” (just as the Pharisees were “a sect”); it is translated “heresies” (1Co_11:19, margin “sects,” the American Standard Revised Version “factions,” margin “Greek: 'heresies' “; the English Revised Version reverses the American Standard Revised Version text and margin; Gal_5:20, the American Standard Revised Version “parties,” margin “heresies”; the English Revised Version reverses text and margin; 2Pe_2:1, “damnable heresies,” the Revised Version (British and American) “destructive heresies,” margin “sects of perdition”); the “sect” in itself might be harmless; it was the teaching or principles which should be followed by those sects that would make them “destructive.” Hairesis occurs in 1 Macc 8:30 (“They shall do it at their pleasure,” i.e. “choice”); compare Septuagint Lev_22:18, Lev_22:21. See HERESY.

Secu

sē´kū (שּׂכוּ, sēkhū; Codex Vaticanus ἐν τῷ Σεφεί, en tṓ Sepheí; Codex Alexandrinus ἐν Σοκχώ, en Sokchṓ; the King James Version Sechu): This name occurs only in the account of David's visit to Samuel (1Sa_19:22). Saul, we are told, went to “Ramah, and came to the great well that is in Secu,” where he inquired after Samuel and David. It evidently lay between the residence of Saul at Gibeah and Ramah. It is impossible to come to any sure conclusion regarding it. Conder suggested its identification with Khirbet Suweikeh, which lies to the South of Bīreh. This is possible, but perhaps we should read with the Septuagint's Codex Vaticanus, “He came to the cistern of the threshing-floor that is on the bare hill” (en tō Sephei). The threshing-floors in the East are naturally on high exposed ground where this is possible, and often form part of the area whence water in the rainy season is conducted to cisterns. This might have been a place actually within the city of Ramah.

Secundus

sḗ-kun´dus (Westcott-Hort Greek text Σέκουνδος, Sékoundos, Textus Receptus of the New Testament, Σεκοῦνδος, Sekoúndos): A Thessalonian who was among those who accompanied Paul from Greece to Asia (Act_20:4). They had preceded Paul and waited for him at Troas. If he were one of the representatives of the churches in Macedonia and Greece, entrusted with their contributions to Jerusalem (Act_24:17; 2Co_8:23), he probably accompanied Paul as far as Jerusalem. The name is found in a list of politarchs on a Thessalonian inscription.

Secure; Security

sḗ-kūr´, sḗ-kū´ri-ti: The word bāṭaḥ and its derivatives in Hebrew point to security, either real or imaginary. Thus we read of a host that “was secure” (Jdg_8:11) and of those “that provoke God (and) are secure” (Job_12:6); but also of a security that rests in hope and is safe (Job_11:18). The New Testament words (ποιέω ἀμερίμνους, poiéō amerímnous), used in Mat_28:14 (the King James Version “secure you”), guarantee the safety of the soldiers, who witnessed against themselves, in the telling of the story of the disappearance of the body of Christ.

Securely is used in the sense of “trustful,” “not anticipating danger” (Pro_3:29; Mic_2:8; Ecclesiasticus 4:15).

The word (ἱκανόν, hikanón, translated security (Act_17:9), may stand either for a guaranty of good behavior exacted from, or for some form of punishment inflicted on, Jason and his followers by the rulers of Thessalonica.

Sedecias

sed-ḗ-sī´as:

The King James Version = the Revised Version (British and American) SEDEKIAS (which see).

Sedekias

sed-ḗ-kī´as:

(1) (Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Vaticanus Σεδεκίας, Sedekías; the King James Version Zedechias): 1 Esdras 1:46 (44) = Zedekiah king of Judah; also in Baruch 1:8 where the King James Version reads “Sedecias.”

(2) In Baruch 1:1 (the King James Version “Sedecias”), an ancestor of Baruch, “the son of Asadias,” sometimes (but incorrectly) identified with the false prophet “Zedekiah the son of Maaseiah” (Jer_29:21).

Sedition

sḗ-dish´un: The translation in Ezr_4:15, Ezr_4:19 for אשׁתּדּוּר, 'eshtaddūr, “struggling,” “revolt”; in 2 Esdras 15:16 for inconstabilitio, “instability” with “be seditious” for στασιάζω, stasiázō, “rise in rebellion” in 2 Macc 14:6. In addition, the King James Version has “sedition” for στάσις, stásis, “standing up,” “revolt” (the Revised Version (British and American) “insurrection”) in Luk_23:19, Luk_23:25; Act_24:5, with (διχοστασις, dichostasía), “a standing asunder” (the Revised Version (British and American) “division”) in Gal_5:20. As “sedition” does not include open violence against a government, the word should not have been used in any of the above cases.

Seduce; Seducer

sḗ-dūs´, sḗ-dūs´er (Hiphil of טעה, ṭā‛āh, or תּעה, tā‛āh, “to err”; of פּתה, pāthāh, “to be simple”; πλανάω, planáō, ἀποπλανάω, apoplanáō, “to lead astray”): (1) The word “seduce” is only used in the Bible in its general meaning of “to lead astray,” “to cause to err,” as from the paths of truth, duty or religion. It occurs in the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) Eze_13:10; 2Ki_21:9; 1Ti_4:1; Rev_2:20; in the King James Version only, Pro_12:26 (the Revised Version (British and American) “causeth to err”); Isa_19:13 (the Revised Version (British and American) “caused to go astray”); Mar_13:22; 1Jo_2:26 (the Revised Version (British and American) “lead astray”). The noun “seducer” (2Ti_3:13 the King James Version, γόης, góēs) is correctly changed in the Revised Version (British and American) into “impostor.” (2) It is not found in its specific sense of “to entice a female to surrender her chastity.” Yet the crime itself is referred to and condemned.

Three cases are to be distinguished: (a) The seduction of an unbetrothed virgin: In this case the seducer cording to J-E (Exo_22:16 f) is to be compelled to take the virgin as his wife, if the father consents, and to pay the latter the usual purchase price, the amount of which is not defined. In the Deuteronomic Code (Deu_22:28) the amount is fixed at 50 shekels, and the seducer forfeits the right of divorce. (b) The seduction of a betrothed virgin: This case (Deu_22:23-27; not referred to in the other codes) is treated as virtually one of adultery, the virgin being regarded as pledged to her future husband as fully as if she were formally married to him; the penalty therefore is the same as for adultery, namely, death for both parties (except in the case where the girl can reasonably be acquitted of blame, in which case the man only is put to death). (c) The seduction of a betrothed bondmaid (mentioned only in Lev_19:20-22): Here there is no infliction of death, because the girl was not free; but the seducer shall make a trespass offering, besides paying the fine. See CRIMES; PUNISHMENTS.

See

sē: In addition to the ordinary sense of perceiving by the eye, we have (1) חזה, ḥāzāh, “to see” (in vision): “Words of Amos ... which he saw concerning Israel” (Amo_1:1). The revelation was made to his inward eye. “The word of Yahweh ... which he (Micah) saw concerning Samaria” (Mic_1:1), describing what he saw in prophetic vision (compare Hab_1:1); see REVELATION, III, 4; (2) ὁράω, horáō, “to take heed”: “See thou say nothing” (Mar_1:44); (3) εἶδον, eídon, “to know,” “to note with the mind”: “Jesus saw that he answered discreetly” (Mar_12:34); (4) θεωρέω, theōréō, “to view,” “to have knowledge or experience of”: “He shall never see death” (Joh_8:51).

Seed

sēd (Old Testament always for זרע, zera‛, Aramaic (Dan_2:43) זרע, z^era‛, except in Joe_1:17 for פּרדות, p^erudhōth (plural, the Revised Version (British and American) “seeds,” the King James Version “seed”), and Lev_19:19 (the King James Version “mingled seed”) and Deu_22:9 (the King James Version “divers seeds”) for כּלאים, kil'ayim, literally, “two kinds,” the Revised Version (British and American) “two kinds of seed.” Invariably in Greek Apocrypha and usually in the New Testament for σπέρμα, spérma, but Mar_4:26, Mar_4:27; Luk_8:5, Luk_8:11; 2Co_9:10 for σπόρος, spóros, and 1Pe_1:23 for σπορά, sporá): (1) For “seed” in its literal sense see AGRICULTURE. Of interest is the method of measuring land by means of the amount of seed that could be sown on it (Lev_27:16). The prohibition against using two kinds of seed in the same field (Lev_19:19; Deu_22:9) undoubtedly rests on the fact that the practice had some connection with Canaanitish worship, making the whole crop “consecrated” (taboo). Jer_31:27 uses “seed of man” and “seed of beast” as a figure for the means by which God will increase the prosperity of Israel (i.e. “seed yielding men”). (2) For the transferred physiological application of the word to human beings (Lev_15:16, etc.) see CLEAN; UNCLEAN. The conception of Christians as “born” or “begotten” of God (see REGENERATION) gave rise to the figure in 1Pe_1:23; 1Jo_3:9. If the imagery is to be stressed, the Holy Spirit is meant. In I Joh_3:9 a doctrine of certain Gnostics is opposed. They taught that by learning certain formulas and by submitting to certain rites, union with God and salvation could be attained without holiness of life. John's reply is that union with a righteous God is meaningless without righteousness as an ideal, even though shortcomings exist in practice (1Jo_1:8). (3) From the physiological use of “seed” the transition to the sense of “offspring” was easy, and the word may mean “children” (Lev_18:21, etc.) or even a single child (Gen_4:25; 1Sa_1:11 the Revised Version margin). Usually, however, it means the whole posterity (Gen_3:15, etc.); compare “seed royal” (2Ki_11:1, etc.), and “Abraham's seed” (2Ch_20:7, etc.) or “the holy seed” (Ezr_9:2; Isa_6:13; 1 Esdras 8:70; compare Jer_2:21) as designations of Israel. So “to show one's seed” (Ezr_2:59;, Neh_7:61) is to display one's genealogy, and “one's seed” may be simply one's nation, conceived of as a single family (Est_10:3). From this general sense there developed a still looser use of “seed” as meaning simply “men” (Mal_2:15; Isa_1:4; Isa_57:4; The Wisdom of Solomon 10:15; 12:11, etc.).

In Gal_3:16 Paul draws a distinction between “seeds” and “seed” that has for its purpose a proof that the promises to Abraham were realized in Christ and not in Israel. The distinction, however, overstresses the language of the Old Testament, which never pluralizes zera‛ when meaning “descendants” (plural only in 1Sa_8:15; compare Rom_4:18; Rom_9:7). But in an argument against rabbinical adversaries Paul was obliged to use rabbinical methods (compare Gal_4:25). For modern purposes it is probably best to treat such an exegetical method as belonging simply to the (now superseded) science of the times.

Seer

sē´ẽr, sēr: The word in English Versions of the Bible represents two Hebrew words, ראה, rō'eh (1Sa_9:9, 1Sa_9:11, 1Sa_9:18, 1Sa_9:19; 2Sa_15:27; 1Ch_9:22, etc.), And חזה, ḥōzeh (2Sa_24:11; 2Ki_17:13; 1Ch_21:9; 1Ch_25:5; 1Ch_29:29, etc.). The former designation is from the ordinary verb “to see”; the latter is connected with the verb used of prophetic vision. It appears from 1Sa_9:9 that “seer” (rō'eh) was the older name for those who, after the rise of the more regular orders, were called “prophets.” It is not just, however, to speak of the “seers” or “prophets” of Samuel's time as on the level of mere fortune-tellers. What insight or vision they possessed is traced to God's Spirit. Samuel was the rō'eh by pr-eeminence, and the name is little used after his time. Individuals who bear the title “seer” (ḥōzeh) are mentioned in connection with the kings and as historiographers (2Sa_24:11; 1Ch_21:9; 1Ch_25:5; 1Ch_29:29; 2Ch_9:29; 2Ch_12:15; 2Ch_19:2, etc.), and distinction is sometimes made between “prophets” and “seers” (2Ki_17:13; 1Ch_29:29, etc.). Havernick thinks that “seer” denotes one who does not belong to the regular prophetic order (Introductions to Old Testament, 50 ff, English translation), but it is not easy to fix a precise distinction. See PROPHET, PROPHECY.

Seethe

sēth: Old English for “boil”; past tense, “sod” (Gen_25:29), past participle, “sodden” (Lam_4:10). See Exo_23:19 the King James Version.

Segub

sē´gub (שׂגוּב, s^eghūbh (Ḳ^erē), שׂגיב, s^eghībh (K^ethībh); Codex Vaticanus Ζεγούβ, Zegoúb; Codex Alexandrinus Σωγούβ, Segoúb):

(1) The youngest son of Hiel, the rebuilder of Jericho (1Ki_16:34). The death of Segub is probably connected with the primitive custom of laying foundations with blood, as, indeed, skulls were found built in with the brickwork when the tower of Bel at Nippur was excavated. See GEZER. If the death of the two sons was based on the custom just mentioned, the circumstance was deliberately obscured in the present account. The death of Segub may have been due to an accident in the setting up of the gates. In any event, tradition finally yoked the death of Hiel's oldest and youngest sons with a curse said to have been pronounced by Joshua on the man that should venture to rebuild Jericho (Jos_6:26).

(2) Son of Hezron and father of Jair (1Ch_2:21).

Seir

sē´ir:

(1) (שׂעיר הר, har sē‛īr, “Mt. Seir” (Gen_14:6, etc.), שׂעיר, 'erec sē‛īr (Gen_32:3, etc.); τὸ ὄρος Σηείρ, tó óros Sēeír, γῆ Σηείρ, gḗ Sēeir): In Gen_32:3 “the land of Seir” is equated with “the field of Edom.” The Mount and the Land of Seir are alternative appellations of the mountainous tract which runs along the eastern side of the Arabah, occupied by the descendants of Esau, who succeeded the ancient Horites (Gen_14:6; Gen_36:20), “cave-dwellers,” in possession. For a description of the land see EDOM.

(2) (שׂעיר הר, har sē‛īr; Codex Vaticanus Ἀσσάρ, Assár; Codex Alexandrinus Σηείρ, Sēeír): A landmark on the boundary of Judah (Jos_15:10), not far from Kiriath-jearim and Chesalon. The name means “shaggy,” and probably here denoted a wooded height. It may be that part of the range which runs Northeast from Sārīs by Karyat el-‛Anab and Biddu to the plateau of el-Jîb. Traces of an ancient forest are still to be seen here.

Seirah

sḗ-ī´ra, sē´i-ra (השׂעירה, ha-s^e‛īrāh; Codex Vaticanus Σετειρωθά, Seteirōthá; Codex Alexandrinus Σεειρῶθα, Seeirṓtha; the King James Version, Seirath): The place to which Ehud escaped after his assassination of Eglon, king of Moab (Jdg_3:26). The name is from the same root as the foregoing, and probably applied to some shaggy forest. The quarries by which he passed are said to have been by Gilgal (Jdg_3:19), but there is nothing to guide us to an identification. Eusebius, in Onomasticon, gives the name, but no indication of the site.

Seirath

sḗ-ī´rath, sē´i-rath. See SEIRAH.

Sela

sē´la (סלע, sela‛, הסּלע, ha-ṣela‛ (with the article); πέτρα, pétra, ἡ πέτρα, hē pétra; the King James Version Selah (2Ki_14:7)): English Versions of the Bible renders this as the name of a city in 2Ki_14:7; Isa_16:1. In Jdg_1:36; 2Ch_25:12; and Oba_1:3, it translates literally, “rock”; but the Revised Version margin in each case “Sela.” It is impossible to assume with Hull (HD B, under the word) that this name, when it appears in Scripture, always refers to the capital of Edom, the great city in Wâdy Mūsa. In Jdg_1:36 its association with the Ascent of Akrabbim shuts us up to a position toward the southwestern end of the Dead Sea. Probably in that case it does not denote a city, but some prominent crag. Moore (“Judges,” ICC, 56), following Buhl, would identify it with es-Ṣāfieh, “a bare and dazzlingly white sandstone promontory 1,000 ft. high, East of the mud fiats of es-Sebkah, and 2 miles South of the Dead Sea.” A more probable identification is a high cliff which commands the road leading from Wâdy el-Milḥ, “valley of Salt,” to Edom, over the pass of Akrabbim. This was a position of strategic importance, and if fortified would be of great strength. (In this passage “Edomites” must be read for “Amorites.”) The victory of Amaziah was won in the Valley of Salt. He would naturally turn his arms at once against this stronghold (2Ki_14:7); and it may well be the rock from the top of which he hurled his prisoners (2Ch_25:12). He called it Jokteel, a name the meaning of which is obscure. Possibly it is the same as Jekuthiel (1Ch_4:18), and may mean “preservation of God” (OHL, under the word). No trace of this name has been found. The narratives in which the place is mentioned put identification with Petra out of the question.

“The rock” (the Revised Version margin “Sela”) in Oba_1:3, in the phrase “thou that dwellest in the clefts of the rock.” is only a vivid and picturesque description of Mt. Edom. “The purple mountains into which the wild sons of Esau clambered run out from Syria upon the desert, some hundred miles by twenty, of porphyry and red sandstone. They are said to be the finest rock scenery in the world. 'Salvator Rosa never conceived so savage and so suitable a haunt for banditti.'...The interior is reached by defiles so narrow that two horsemen may scarcely ride abreast, and the sun is shut out by the overhanging rocks.... Little else than wild fowls' nests are, the villages: human eyries perched on high shelves or hidden away in caves at the ends of the deep gorges” (G. A. Smith. The Book of the Twelve Prophets. II. 178 f).

In Isa_16:1; Isa_42:11 the Revised Version (British and American), perhaps we have a reference to the great city of Petra. Josephus (Ant., IV, vii, 1) tells us that among the kings of the Midianites who fell before Moses was one Rekem, king of Rekem (akre, or rekéme), the city deriving its name from its founder. This he says was the Arabic name; the Greeks called it Petra. Eusebius, Onomasticon says Petra is a city of Arabia in the land of Edom. It is called Jechthoel; but the Syrians call it Rekem. Jokteel, as we have seen, must be sought elsewhere. There can be no doubt that Josephus intended the city in Wâdy Mūsa. Its Old Testament name was Bozrah (Amo_1:12, etc.). Wetzstein (Excursus in Delitzsch's Isa³, 696 ff) hazards the conjecture that the complete ancient nine was Bozrat has-Sela, “Bozrah of the Rock.”

This “rose-red city half as old as Time”

Sela was for long difficult of access, and the attempt to visit it was fraught with danger. In recent years, however, it has been seen by many tourists and exploring parties. Of the descriptions written the best is undoubtedly that of Professor Dalman of Jerusalem (Petra und seine Felsheiligtumer, Leipzig, 1908). An excellent account of this wonderful city, brightly and interestingly written, will be found in Libbey and Hoskins' book (The Jordan Valley and Petra, New York and London, 1905; see also National Geographic Magazine, May, 1907, Washington, D.C.). The ruins lie along the sides of a spacious hollow surrounded by the many-hued cliffs of Edom, just before they sink into the Arabah on the West. It is near the base of Jebel Harūn, about 50 miles from the Dead Sea, and just North of the watershed between that sea and the Gulf of Akaba. The valley owes its modern name, Wâdy Mūsa, “Valley of Moses,” to its connection with Moses in Mohammedan legends. While not wholly inaccessible from other directions, the two usual approaches are that from the Southwest by a rough path, partly artificial, and that from the East. The latter is by far the more important. The valley closes to the East, the only opening being through a deep and narrow defile, called the Sīk, “shaft,” about a mile in length. In the bottom of the Sīk flows westward the stream that rises at ‛Ain Mūsa, East of the cleft is the village of Elji, an ancient site, corresponding to Gaia of Eusebius (Onomasticon). Passing this village, the road threads its way along the shadowy winding gorge, overhung by lofty cliffs. When the valley is reached, a sight of extraordinary beauty and impressiveness opens to the beholder. The temples, the tombs, theater, etc., hewn with great skill and infinite pains from the living rock, have defied to an astonishing degree the tooth of time, many of the carvings being as fresh as if they had been cut yesterday. An idea of the scale on which the work was done may be gathered from the size of theater, which furnished accommodation for no fewer than 3,000 spectators.

Such a position could not have been overlooked in ancient times; and we are safe to assume that a city of importance must always have existed here. It is under the Nabateans, however, that Petra begins to play a prominent part in history. This people took possession about the end of the 4th century BC, and continued their sway until overcome by Hadrian, who gave his own name to the city - Hadriana. This name, however, soon disappeared. Under the Romans Petra saw the days of her greatest splendor.

According to old tradition Paul visited Petra when he went into Arabia (Gal_1:17). Of this there is no certainty; but Christianity was early introduced, and the city became the seat of a bishopric. Under the Nabateans she was the center of the great caravan trade of that time. The merchandise of the East was brought hither; and hence, set out the caravans for the South, the West, and the North. The great highway across the desert to the Persian Gulf was practically in her hands. The fall of the Nabatean power gave Palmyra her chance; and her supremacy in the commerce of Northern Arabia dates from that time. Petra shared in the declining fortunes of Rome; and her death blow was dealt by the conquering Moslems, who desolated Arabia Petrea in 629-32 AD. The place now furnishes a retreat for a few poor Bedawy families.

Sela-Hammahlekoth

sē-la-ha-ma´lḗ-koth, -kōth (המּחלקות סלע, ṣela‛ha-maḥl^eḳōth; πέτρα ἡ μερισθεῖσα, pétra hē meristheísa): “The rock of divisions (or, escape)” (1Sa_23:28 margin). “Saul ... pursued after David in the wilderness of Maon. And Saul went on this side of the mountain, and David and his men on that side of the mountain: and David made haste to get away for fear of Saul” (1Sa_23:25, 1Sa_23:26). The name seems to survive in Wâdy Malāki, “the great gorge which breaks down between Carmel and Maon eastward, with vertical cliffs” (PEF, III, 314, Sh. XXI).

Selah

sē´la. See MUSIC, II, 1.

Seled

sē´led (celedh): A Jerahmeelite (1Ch_2:30 twice).

Selemia

sel-ḗ-mī´a: One of the swift scribes whose services Ezra was commanded to secure (2 Esdras 14:24). The name is probably identical with SELEMIAS of 1 Esdras 9:34 (which see).

Selemias

sḗl-e-mī´as (Σελεμίας, Selemías): One of those who put away their “strange wives” (1 Esdras 9:34) = “Shelemiah”. in Ezr_10:39, and probably identical with “Selemia” in 2 Esdras 14:24.

Seleucia

sḗ-lū´shi-a (Σελευκία, Seleukía): The seaport of Antioch from which it is 16 miles distant. It is situated 5 miles North of the mouth of the Orontes, in the northwestern corner of a fruitful plain at the base of Mt. Rhosus or Pieria, the modern Jebel Mūsa, a spur of the Amanus Range. Built by Seleucus Nicator (died 280 BC) it was one of the Syrian Tetrapolis, the others being Apameia, Laodicea and Antioch. The city was protected by nature on the mountain side, and, being strongly fortified on the South and West, was considered invulnerable and the key to Syria (Strabo 751; Polyb. v. 58). It was taken, however, by Ptolemy Euergetes (1 Macc 11:8) and remained in his family till 219 BC, when it was recovered for the Seleucids by Antiochus the Great, who then richly adorned it. Captured again by Ptolemy Philometor in 146 BC, it remained for a short time in the hands of the Egyptians. Pompey made it a free city in 64 BC in return for its energy in resisting Tigranes (Pliny, NH, v. 18), and it was then greatly improved by the Romans, so that in the 1st century AD it was in a most flourishing condition.

On their first missionary journey Paul and Barnabas passed through it (Act_13:4; Act_14:26), and though it is not named in Act_15:30, Act_15:39, this route is again implied; while it is excluded in Act_15:3.

The ruins are very extensive and cover the whole space within the line of the old walls, which shows a circuit of four miles. The position of the Old Town, the Upper City and the suburbs may still be identified, as also that of the Antioch Gate, the Market Gate and the King's Gate, which last leads to the Upper City. There are rock-cut tombs, broken statuary and sarcophagi at the base of the Upper City, a position which probably represents the burial place of the Seleucids. The outline of a circus or amphitheater can also be traced, while the inner harbor is in perfect condition and full of water. It is 2,000 ft. long by 1,200 ft. broad, and covers 47 acres, being oval or pear-shaped. The passage seaward, now silted up, was protected by two strong piers or moles, which are locally named after Barnabas and Paul. The most remarkable of the remains, however, is the great water canal behind the city, which the emperor Constantius cut through the solid rock in 338 AD. It is 3, 074 ft. long, has an average breadth of 20 ft., and is in some places 120 ft. deep. Two portions of 102 and 293 ft. in length are tunneled. The object of the work was clearly to carry the mountain torrent direct to the sea, and so protect the city from the risk of flood during the wet season.

Church synods occasionally met in Seleucia in the early centuries, but it gradually sank into decay, and long before the advent of Islam it had lost all its significance.

Seleucidae

sḗ-lū´si-dē. See SELEUCUS.

Seleucus

sḗ-lū´kus (Σέλευκος, Séleukos):

(1) Seleucus I (Nicator, “The Conqueror”), the founder of the Seleucids or House of Seleucus, was an officer in the grand and thoroughly equipped army, which was perhaps the most important part of the inheritance that came to Alexander the Great from his father, Philip of Macedon. He took part in Alexander's Asiatic conquests, and on the division of these on Alexander's death he obtained the satrapy of Babylonia. By later conquests and under the name of king, which he assumed in the year 306, he became ruler of Syria and the greater part of Asia Minor. His rule extended from 312 to 280 BC, the year of his death; at least the Seleucid era which seems to be referred to in 1 Macc 1:16 is reckoned from Seleucus I, 312 BC to 65 BC, when Pompey reduced the kingdom of Syria to a Roman province. He followed generally the policy of Alexander in spreading Greek civilization. He founded Antioch and its port Seleucia, and is said by Josephus (Ant., XII, iii, 1) to have conferred civic privileges upon the Jews. The reference in Dan_11:5 is usually understood to be to this ruler.

(2) Seleucus II (Callinicus, “The Gloriously Triumphant”), who reigned from 246 to 226 BC, was the son of Antiochus Soter and is “the king of the north” in Dan_11:7-9, who was expelled from his kingdom by Ptolemy Euergetes.

(3) Seleucus III (Ceraunus, “Thunderbolt”), son of Seleucus II, was assassinated in a campaign which he undertook into Asia Minor. He had a short reign of rather more than 2 years (226-223 BC) and is referred to in Dan_11:10.

(4) Seleucus IV (Philopator, “Fond of his Father”) was the son and successor of Antiochus the Great and reigned from 187 to 175 BC. He is called “King of Asia” (2 Macc 3:3), a title claimed by the Seleucids even after their serious losses in Asia Minor (see 1 Macc 8:6; 11:13; 12:39; 13:32). He was present at the decisive battle of Magnesia (190 BC). He was murdered by HELIODORUS (which see), one of his own courtiers whom he had sent to plunder the Temple (2 Macc 3:1-40; Dan_11:20).

For the connection of the above-named Seleucids with the “ten horns” of Dan_7:24, the commentators must be consulted.

Seleucus V (125-124 BC) and Seleucus VI (95-93 BC) have no connection with the sacred narrative.

Self-Control

self-kon-trōl´ (ἐγκράτεια, egkráteia): Rendered in the King James Version “temperance” (compare Latin temperario and continentia), but more accurately “self-control,” as in the Revised Version (British and American) (Act_24:25; Gal_5:23; 2Pe_1:6); adjective of same, ἐγκρατής, egkratḗs, “self-controlled” (Tit_1:8 the Revised Version (British and American)); compare verb forms in 1Co_7:9, “have ... continency”; 1Co_9:25, the athlete “exerciseth self-control.” Self-control is therefore repeatedly set forth in the New Testament as among the important Christian virtues.

Self-Righteousness

self-rī´chus-nes: A term that has come to designate moral living as a way of salvation; or as a ground for neglecting the redemptive work of Jesus Christ. The thought is present in the teaching of Jesus, who spoke one parable particularly to such as reckoned themselves to be righteous (Luk_18:9 ff). The Pharisees quite generally resented the idea of Jesus that all men needed repentance and they most of all. They regarded themselves as righteous and looked with contempt on “sinners.” Paul in all his writings, especially Rom 3; Gal 3; Eph 2; Phil 3, contrasts the righteousness that is God's gift to men of faith in Jesus Christ, with righteousness that is “of the law” and “in the flesh.” By this latter he means formal conformity to legal requirements in the strength of unregenerate human nature. He is careful to maintain (compare Rom 7) that the Law is never really kept by one's own power. On the other hand, in full agreement with Jesus, Paul looks to genuine righteousness in living as the demand and achievement of salvation based on faith. God's gift here consists in the capacity progressively to realize righteousness in life (compare Rom_8:1 ff). See also SANCTIFICATION.

Self-Surrender

self-su-ren´dẽr: The struggle between the natural human impulses of selfseeking, self-defence and the like, on the one hand, and the more altruistic impulse toward self-denial, self-surrender, on the other, is as old as the race. All religions imply some conception of surrender of self to deity, ranging in ethical quality from a heathen fanaticism which impels to complete physical exhaustion or rapture, superinduced by more or less mechanical means, to the high spiritual quality of self-sacrifice to the divinest aims and achievements. The Scriptures represent self-surrender as among the noblest of human virtues.

I. In the Old Testament.

1. Illustrious Examples:

In the Old Testament self-surrender is taught in the early account of the first pair. Each was to be given to the other (Gen_2:24; Gen_3:16) and both were to be surrendered to God in perfect obedience (Gen_3:1-15). The faithful ones, throughout the Bible narratives, were characterized by self-surrender. Abraham abandons friends and native country to go to a land unknown to him, because God called him to do so (Gen_12:1). He would give up all his cherished hopes in his only son Isaac, at the voice of God (Gen 22:1-18). Moses, at the call of Yahweh, surrenders self, and undertakes the deliverance of his fellow-Hebrews (Ex 3:1 through 4:13; compare Heb_11:25). He would be blotted out of God's book, if only the people might be spared destruction (Exo_32:32).

2. The Levitical System:

The whole Levitical system of sacrifice may be said to imply the doctrine of self-surrender. The nation itself was a people set apart to Yahweh, a holy people, a surrendered nation (Exo_19:5, Exo_19:6; Exo_22:31; Lev_20:7; Deu_7:6; Deu_14:2). The whole burnt offering implied the complete surrender of the worshipper to God (Lev 1). The ceremony for the consecration of priests emphasized the same fundamental doctrine (Lev 8); so also the law as to the surrender of the firstborn child (Exo_13:13 ff; Exo_22:29).

3. The Prophets:

In the divine call to the prophets and in their life-work self-surrender is prominent. The seer, as such, must be receptive to the divine impress, and as mouthpiece of God, he must speak not his own words, but God's: “Thus saith the Lord.” He was to be a “man of God,” a “man of the spirit.” 'The hand of the Lord was upon me' (Eze_1:3; Eze_3:14) implies complete divine mastery. Isaiah must submit to the divine purification of his lips, and hearken to the inquiry, “who will go for us?” with the surrendered response, “Here am I; send me” (Isa_6:8). Jeremiah must yield his protestations of weakness and inability to the divine wisdom and the promise of endowment from above (Jer_1:1-10). Ezekiel surrenders to the dangerous and difficult task of becoming messenger to a rebellious house (Ezek 2:1 through 3:3). Jonah, after flight from duty, at last surrenders to the divine will and goes to the Ninevites (Jon_3:3).

4. Post-Exilic Examples:

On the return of the faithful remnant from captivity, self-giving for the sake of Israel's faith was dominant, the people enduring great hardships for the future of the nation and the accomplishment of Yahweh's purposes. This is the spirit of the great Messianic passage, Isa_53:7 : “He was oppressed, yet when he was afflicted he opened not his mouth; as a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep that before its shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.” Nehemiah surrendered position in Shushan to help reestablish the returned exiles in Jerusalem (Neh_2:5). Esther was ready to surrender her life in pleading for the safety of her people (Est_4:16).

II. In the New Testament.

1. Christ's Teaching and Example:

In the New Testament self-surrender is still more clearly set forth. Christ's teachings and example as presented in the Gospels, give to it special emphasis. It is a prime requisite for becoming His disciple (Mat_10:38 f; Mat_16:24; Luk_9:23, Luk_9:24, Luk_9:59 f; Luk_14:27, Luk_14:33; compare Mat_19:27; Mar_8:34). When certain of the disciples were called they left all and followed (Mat_4:20; Mat_9:9; Mar_2:14; Luk_5:27 f). His followers must so completely surrender self, as that father, mother, kindred, and one's own life must be, as it were, hated for His sake (Luk_14:26). The rich young ruler must renounce self as an end and give his own life to the service of men (Mat_19:21; Mar_10:21; compare Luk_12:33). But this surrender of self was never a loss of personality; it was the finding of the true selfhood (Mar_8:35; Mat_10:39). our Lord not only taught self-surrender, but practiced it. As a child, He subjected Himself to His parents (Luk_2:51). Self-surrender marked His baptism and temptation (Mat_3:15; Mat_4:1 ff). It is shown in His life of physical privation (Mat_8:20). He had come not to do His own will, but the Fathers (Joh_4:34; Joh_5:30; Joh_6:38). He refuses to use force for His own deliverance (Mat_26:53; Joh_18:11). In His person God's will, not His own, must be done (Mat_26:29; Luk_22:42); and to the Father He at last surrendered His spirit (Luk_23:46). So that while He was no ascetic, and did not demand asceticism of His followers, He “emptied himself ... becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross” (Phi_2:7 f). See KENOSIS.

2. Acts of Apostles:

The early disciples practiced the virtue of self-surrender. Counting none of their possessions their own, they gave to the good of all (Act_2:44, Act_2:45; Act_4:34, Act_4:35, Act_4:37). Stephen and others threw themselves into their witnessing with the perfect abandon of the martyr; and Stephen's successor, Paul, counted not his life dear unto himself that he might finish the divinely-appointed course (Act_20:22-24).

3. Epistles of Paul:

The Epistles are permeated with the doctrine of self-surrender. The Pauline Epistles are particularly full of it. The Christian life is conceived of as a dying to self and to the world - a dying with Christ, a crucifixion of the old man, that a new man may live (Gal_2:20; Gal_6:14; Col_2:20; Col_3:3; Rom_6:6), so that no longer the man lives but Christ lives in him (Gal_2:20; Phi_1:21). The Christian is no longer his own but Christ's (1Co_6:19, 1Co_6:20). He is to be a living sacrifice (Rom_12:1); to die daily (1Co_15:31). As a corollary to surrender to God, the Christian must surrender himself to the welfare of his neighbor, just as Christ pleased not Himself (Rom_15:3); also to leaders (1Co_16:16), and to earthly rulers (Rom_13:1).

4. Epistles of Peter:

In the Epistles of Peter self-surrender is taught more than once. Those who were once like sheep astray now submit to the guidance of the Shepherd of souls (1Pe_2:25). The Christian is to humble himself under the mighty hand of God (1Pe_5:6); the younger to be subject to the elder (1Pe_5:5); and all to civil ordinances for the Lord's sake (1Pe_2:13).

So also in other Epistles, the Christian is to subject himself to God (Jam_4:7; Heb_12:9).

Self-Will

self-wil´ (רחון, rācōn; αὐθάδης, authádēs): Found once in the Old Testament (Gen_49:6, “In their self-will they hocked an ox”) in the death song of Jacob (see HOCK). The idea is found twice in the New Testament in the sense of “pleasing oneself”: “not self-willed, not soon angry” (Tit_1:7); and “daring, self-willed, they tremble not to rail at dignities” (2Pe_2:10). In all these texts it stands for a false pride, for obstinacy, for “a pertinacious adherence to one's will or wish, especially in opposition to the dictates of wisdom or propriety or the wishes of others.”

Sell; Seller

sel´ẽr. See TRADE; LYDIA.

Selvedge

sel´vej (קצה, ḳācāh): The word occurs only in the description of the tabernacle (Exo_26:4; Exo_36:11). It has reference to the ten curtains which overhung the boards of the sanctuary. Five of these formed one set and five another. These were “coupled” at the center by 50 loops of blue connected by “clasps” (which see) with 50 others on the opposite side. The “selvedge” (self-edge) is the extremity of the curtain in which the loops were.

Sem

sem (Σήμ, Sḗm): the King James Version from the Greek form of Shem; thus the Revised Version (British and American) (Luk_3:36).

Semachiah

sem-a-kī´a (סמכיהוּ, ṣ^emakhyāhū, “Yah has sustained”): A Korahite family of gatekeepers (1Ch_26:7). Perhaps the same name should be substituted for “Ismachiah” in 2Ch_31:13 (see HPN, 291, 295).

Semei

sem´ḗ-ī:

(1) (Codex Alexandrinus Σεμεί, Semeí; Codex Vaticanus Σεμεεί, Semeeí): One of those who put away their “strange wives” (1 Esdras 9:33) = “Shimei” “of the sons of Hashum” in Ezr_10:33.

(2) the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and American) “Semeias” (Additions to Esther 11:2).

(3) the King James Version form of the Revised Version (British and American) “Semein” (Luk_3:26).

Semeias

sḗ-mḗ-ī´as (Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus Σεμείας, Semeías; Codex Vaticanus Σεμεείας, Semeeías; the King James Version Semei): An ancestor of Mordecai (Additions to Esther 11:2) = “Shimei” (Est_2:5).

Semein

sḗ-mē´in (Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus Σαμεείν, Semeeín; Codex Alexandrinus Σεμεεί, Semeeí, Textus Receptus of the New Testament, Σεμεΐ́, Semeī́; the King James Version, Semei): An ancestor of Jesus in Luke's genealogy (Luk_3:26).

Semeis

sem´ḗ-is (Codex Alexandrinus and Fritzsche, Σεμείς, Semeís; Codex Vaticanus Σενσείς, Senseís; the King James Version, Semis): One of the Levites who put away their “strange wives” (1 Esdras 9:23) = “Shimei” in Ezr_10:23.

Semellius

sḗ-mel´i-us: the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and American) SAMELLIUS (which see).

Semis

sē´mis: the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and American) SEMEIS (which see).

Semites; Semitic Religion

sem´īts, sem-it´ik

1. Biblical References

2. The Five Sons of Shem

3. Original Home of the Semites

4. Confusion with Other Races

5. Reliability of Genesis 10

6. Semitic Languages

7. Semitic Religion

(1) Its Peculiar Theism

(2) Personality of God

(3) Its View of Nature

(4) The Moral Being of God

LITERATURE

1. Biblical References:

The words “Semites,” “Semitic,” do not occur in the Bible, but are derived from the name of Noah's oldest son, Shem (Gen_5:32; Gen_6:10; Gen_9:18, Gen_9:23 ff; Gen_10:1, Gen_10:21 f; Gen_11:10 f; 1 Ch 1). Formerly the designation was limited to those who are mentioned in Gen 10; 11 as Shem's descendants, most of whom can be traced historically and geographically; but more recently the title has been expanded to apply to others who are not specified in the Bible as Semites, and indeed are plainly called Hamitic, e.g. the Babylonians (Gen_10:10) and the Phoenicians and Canaanites (Gen_10:15-19). The grounds for the inclusion of these Biblical Hamites among the Semites are chiefly linguistic, although political, commercial and religious affinities are also considered. History and the study of comparative philology, however, suggest the inadequacy of a linguistic argument.

2. The Five Sons of Shem:

The sons of Shem are given as Elam, Assbur, Arpachshad, Lud and Aram (Gen_10:22). All except the third have been readily identified, Elam as the historic nation in the highlands East of the Tigris, between Media and Persia; Asshur as the Assyrians; Lud as the Lydians of Asia Minor; and Aram as the Syrians both East and West of the Euphrates. The greatest uncertainty is in the identification of Arpachshad, the most prolific ancestor of the Semites, especially of those of Biblical and more recent importance. From him descended the Hebrews and the Arab tribes, probably also some East African colonies (Gen_10:24-30; Gen_11:12-26). The form of his name ארפּכשׁד, 'arpakhshadh) has given endless trouble to ethnographers. McCurdy divides into two words, Arpach or Arpath, unidentified, and kesedh, the singular of kasdīm, i.e. the Chaldeans; Schrader also holds to the Chaldean interpretation, and the Chaldeans themselves traced their descent from Arpachshad (Josephus, Ant., I, vi, 4); it has been suggested also to interpret as the “border of the Chaldeans” (BDB; Dillmann, in the place cited.). But the historic, ordinary and most satisfactory identification is with Arrapachitis, Northeast of Assyria at the headwaters of the Upper Zab in the Armenian highlands (so Ptolemy, classical geographers, Gesenius, Delitzsch). Delitzsch calls attention to the Armenian termination shadh (Commentary on Genesis, in the place cited.).

3. Original Home of the Semites:

If we accept, then, this identification of Arpachshad as the most northeasterly of the five Semitic families (Gen_10:22), we are still faced by the problem of the primitive home and racial origin of the Semites. Various theories of course have been proposed; fancy and surmise have ranged from Africa to Central Asia. (1) The most common, almost generally accepted, theory places their beginnings in Arabia because of the conservative and primitive Semitic of the Arabic language, the desert characteristics of the various branches of the race, and the historic movements of Semitic tribes northward and westward from Arabia. But this theory does not account for some of the most significant facts: e.g. that the Semitic developments of Arabia are the last, not the first, in time, as must have been the case if Arabia was the cradle of the race. This theory does not explain the Semitic origin of the Elamites, except by denial; much less does it account for the location of Arpachshad still farther north. It is not difficult to understand a racial movement from the mountains of the Northeast into the lowlands of the South and West. But how primitive Arabs could have migrated uphill, as it were, to settle in the Median and Armenian hills is a much more difficult proposition. (2) We must return to the historic and the more natural location of the ancient Semitic home on the hillsides and in the fertile valleys of Armenia. Thence the eldest branch migrated in prehistoric times southward to become historic Elam; Lud moved westward into Asia Minor; Asshur found his way down the Tigris to become the sturdy pastoral people of the middle Mesopotamian plateau until the invasion of the Babylonian colonists and civilization; Aram found a home in Upper Mesopotamia; while Arpachshad, remaining longer in the original home, gave his name to at least a part of it. There in the fertile valleys among the high hills the ancient Semites developed their distinctively tribal life, emphasizing the beauty and close relationship of Nature, the sacredness of the family, the moral obligation, and faith in a personal God of whom they thought as a member of the tribe or friend of the family. The confinement of the mountain valleys is just as adequate an explanation of the Semitic traits as the isolation of the oasis. So from the purer life of their highland home, where had been developed the distinctive and virile elements which were to impress the Semitic faith on the history of mankind, increasing multitudes of Semites poured over the mountain barriers into the broader levels of the plains. As their own-mountain springs and torrents sought a way to the sea down the Tigris and Euphrates beds, so the Semitic tribes followed the same natural ways into their future homes: Elam, Babylonia, Assyria, Mesopotamia, Arabia, Palestine. Those who settled Arabia sent further migrations into Africa, as well as rebounding into the desert west of the Euphrates, Syria and Palestine. Thus Western Asia became the arena of Semitic life, whose influences also reached Egypt and, through Phoenicia, the far-away West-Mediterranean.

4. Confusion with Other Races:

While we may properly call Western and Southwestern Asia the home of the Semitic peoples, there still remains the difficulty of separating them definitely from the other races among whom they lived. The historic Babylonians, e.g., were Semites; yet they dispossessed an earlier non-Semitic people, and were themselves frequently invaded by other races, such as the Hittites, and even the Egyptians. It is not certain therefore which gods, customs, laws, etc., of the Babylonians were Semites, and not adopted from those whom they superseded.

Assyria was racially purely Semitic, but her laws, customs, literature, and many of her gods were acquired from Babylonia; to such an extent was this true that we are indebted to the library of the Assyrian Ashurbanipal for much that we know of Babylonian religion, literature and history. In Syria also the same mixed conditions prevailed, for through Syria by the fords of the Euphrates lay the highway of the nations, and Hittite and Mitannian at times shared the land with her, and left their influence. Possibly in Arabia Semitic blood ran purest, but even in Arabia there were tribes from other races; and the table of the nations in Gen divides that land among the descendants of both Ham and Shem (see TABLE OF NATIONS). Last of all, in Palestine, from the very beginning of its historic period, we find an intermingling and confusion of races and religions such as no other Semitic center presents. A Hamitic people gave one of its common names to the country - Canaan, while the pagan and late-coming Philistine gave the most used name - Palestine. The archaic remains of Horite, Avite and Hivite are being uncovered by exploration; these races survived in places, no doubt, long after the Semitic invasion, contributing their quota to the customs and religious practices of the land. The Hittite also was in the land, holdling outposts from his northern empire, even in the extreme south of Palestine. If the blue eyes and fair complexions of the Amorites pictured on Egyptian monuments are true representations, we may believe that the gigantic Aryans of the North had their portion also in Palestine

5. Reliability of Genesis 10:

It is customary now in Biblical ethnology to disregard the classification of Genesis 10, and to group all the nations of Palestine as Semitic, especially the Canaanite and the Phoenician along with the Hebrew. McCurdy in the Standard BD treats the various gods and religious customs of Palestine as though they were all Semitic, although uniformly these are represented in the Old Testament as perversions and enormities of alien races which the Hebrews were commanded to extirpate. The adoption of them would be, and was, inimical to their own ancestral faith. Because the Hebrews took over eventually the language of the Phoenician, appropriated his art and conveniences, did traffic in his ships, and in Ahab's reign adopted his Baal and Astarte, we are not warranted at all in rushing to the conclusion that the Phoenicians represented a primitive Semitic type. Racial identification by linguistic argument is always precarious, as history clearly shows. One might as well say that Latin and the gospel were Saxon. There are indications that the customs and even the early language of the Hebrews were different from those of the people whom they subdued and dispossessed. Such is the consistent tradition of their race, the Bible always emphasizing the irreconcilable difference between their ancestral faith and the practices of the people of Canaan. We may conclude that the reasons for disregarding the classification of Gen with reference to the Semites and neighboring races are not final. Out from that fruitful womb of nations, the Caucasus, the Semites, one branch of the C Caucasian peoples, went southwestward - as their cousins the Hamites went earlier toward the South and as their younger relatives, the Aryans, were to go northward and westward - with marked racial traits and a pronounced religious development, to play a leading part in the life of man.

6. Semitic Languages:

The phrase Semitic Languages is used of a group of languages which have marked features in common, which also set them off from other languages. But we must avoid the unnecessary inference that nations using the same or kindred languages are of the same ancestry. There are other explanations of linguistic affinity than racial, as the Indians of Mexico may speak Spanish, and the Germans of Milwaukee may speak English. So also neighboring or intermingled nations may just as naturally have used branches of the Semitic language stock. However, it is true that the nations which were truly Semitic used languages which are strikingly akin. These have been grouped as (1) Eastern Sere, including Babylonian and Assyrian; (2) Northern, including Syriac and Aramaic; (3) Western, including Canaanite, or Phoenician, and Hebrew, and (4) Southern, including Arabic, Sabean and Ethiopic (compare Geden, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, 14-28). The distinctive features of this family of languages are (1) the tri-literal root, (2) the consonantal writing, vowel indications being unnecessary so long as the language was spoken, (3) the meager use of moods and tenses in verbal inflection, every action being graphically viewed as belonging to one of two stages in time: completed or incomplete, (4) the paucity of parts of speech, verb and noun covering nearly all the relations of words, (5) the frequent use of internal change in the inflection of words, e.g. the doubling of a consonant or the change of a vowel, and (6) the use of certain letters, called “serviles,” as prefixes or suffixes in inflection; these are parts of pronouns or the worn-down residua of nouns and particles. The manner of writing was not uniform in these languages, Babylonian and Assyrian being ideographic and syllabic, and written from left to right, while Aramaic, Hebrew and Arabic were alphabetic and written from right to left. The primitive forms and inflections of the group are best preserved in the Arabic by reason of the conservatism of the desert peoples, and in the Assyrian by the sudden destruction of that empire and the burial of the records of that language in a comparatively pure state, to be brought back to light by 19th-century exploration. All the characteristics given above are clearly manifest in the Hebrew of the Old Testament.

7. Semitic Religion:

In the study of Semitic Religion there are two tendencies toward error: (1) the Western pragmatical and unsympathetic overtaxing of oriental Nature-symbols and vividly imaginative speech. Because the Semite used the figure of the rock (Deu_32:4, Deu_32:18, Deu_32:30) in describing God, or poetically conceived of the storm-cloud as Yahweh's chariot (Psa_104:3), we must not be led into believing that his religion was a savage animism, or that Yahweh of Israel was only the Zeus of the Greeks. How should an imaginative child of Nature speak of the unseen Spiritual Power, except in the richest analogies of Nature? (2) The second error is the tendency to treat the accretions acquired by contact with other nations as of the essence of Semitic religion, e.g. the golden calf following the Egyptian bondage, and the sexual abominations of the Canaanite Baal and Astarte.

The primitive and distinctive beliefs of the Semitic peoples lie still in great uncertainty because of the long association with other peoples, whose practices they readily took over, and because of the lack of records of the primitive periods of Semitic development, their origin and dispersion among the nations being prehistoric. Our sources of information are the Babylonian and Assyrian tablets and monuments, the Egyptian inscriptions, Phoenician history, Arabian traditions and inscriptions, and principally the Old Testament Scriptures. We can never know perhaps how much the pure Semitism ofBabylonians and Assyrians was diverted and corrupted by the developed civilization which they invaded and appropriated; Egypt was only indirectly affected by Semitic life; Semitic development in Arabia was the latest in all the group, besides which the monuments and reste of Arabian antiquity which have come down to us are comparatively few; and the Phoenician development was corrupted by the sensuality of the ancient Canaanitish cults, while the Bible of the Hebrews emphatically differentiated from the unwholesome religions of Palestine their own faith, which was ancestral, revealed and pure. Was that Bible faith the primitive Semitic cult? At least we must take the Hebrew tradition at its face value, finding in it the prominent features of an ancestral faith, preserved through one branch of the Semitic group. We are met frequently in these Hebrew records by the claim that the religion they present is not a new development, nor a thing apart from the origin of their race, but rather the preservation of an ancient worship, Abraham, Moses and the prophets appearing not as originators, but reformers, or revivers, who sought to keep their people true to an inherited religion. Its elemental features are the following:

(1) Its Peculiar Theism:

It was pronouncedly theistic; not that other religions do not affirm a god; but theism of the Semites was such as to give their religion a unique place among all others. To say the least, it had the germ of monotheism or the tendency toward monotheism, if we have not sufficient evidence to affirm its monotheism, and to rate the later polytheistic representations of Babylonia and Assyria as local perversions. If the old view that Semitic religion was essentially monotheistic be incapable of proof, it is true that the necessary development of their concept of God must ultimately arrive at monotheism. This came to verification in Abram the Hebrew, Jesus the Messiah (Joh_4:21-24) and Mohammed the false prophet. A city-state exclusively, a nation predominantly, worshipped one god, often through some Nature-symbol, as sun or star or element. With the coming of world-conquest, intercourse and vision, the one god of the city or the chief god of the nation became universalized. The ignorant and materialistic Hebrew might localize the God of Israel in a city or on a hilltop; but to the spiritual mind of Amos or in the universal vision of Isaiah He was Yahweh, Lord of all the earth.

(2) Personality of God:

Closely related to this high conception of Deity was the apparently contradictory but really potent idea of the Deity as a personality. The Semite did not grossly materialize his God as did the savage, nor vainly abstract and etherealize Him and so eliminate Him from the experience of man as did the Greek; but to him God universal was also God personal and intimate. The Hebrew ran the risk of conditioning the spirituality of God in order to maintain His real personality. Possibly this has been the most potent element in Semitic religion; God was not far from every one of them. He came into the closest relations as father or friend. He was the companion of king and priest. The affairs of the nation were under His immediate care; He went to war with armies, was a partner in harvest rejoicings; the home was His abode. This conception of Deity carried with it the necessary implication of revelation (Amo_3:8). The office, message and power of the Hebrew prophet were also the logical consequence of knowing God as a Person.

(3) Its View of Nature:

Its peculiar view of Nature was another feature of Semitic religion. God was everywhere and always present in Nature; consequently its symbolism was the natural and ready expression of His nature and presence. Simile, parable and Nature-marvels cover the pages and tablets of their records. Unfortunately this poetic conception of Nature quickly enough afforded a ready path in which wayward feet and carnal minds might travel toward Nature-worship with all of its formalism and its degrading excesses. This feature of Semitic religion offers an interesting commentary on their philosophy. With them the doctrine of Second Causes received no emphasis; God worked directly in Nature, which became to them therefore the continuous arena of signs and marvels. The thunder was His voice, the sunshine reflected the light of His countenance, the winds were His messengers. And so through this imaginative view of the world the Semite dwelt in an enchanted realm of the miraculous.

(4) The Moral Being of God:

The Semite believed in a God who is a moral being. Such a faith in the nature of it was certain to influence profoundly their own moral development, making for them a racial character which has been distinctive and persistent through the changes of millenniums. By it also they have impressed other nations and religions, with which they have had contact. The Code of Hammurabi is an expression of the moral issues of theism. The Law and the Prophets of Israel arose out of the conviction of God's righteousness and of the moral order of His universe (Exo_19:5, Exo_19:6; Isa_1:16-20). The Decalogue is a confession of faith in the unseen God; the Law of Holiness (Lev 17 through 26) is equally a moral code.

While these elements are not absent altogether from other ancient religions, they are pronouncedly characteristic of the Semitic to the extent that they have given to it its permanent form, its large development, and its primacy among the religions of the human race. To know God, to hear His eternal tread in Nature, to clothe Him with light as with a garment, to establish His throne in righteousness, to perceive that holiness is the all-pervading atmosphere of His presence - such convictions were bound to affect the life and progress of a rate, and to consecrate them as a nation of priests for all mankind.

Literature.

For discussion of the details of Semitic peoples and religions reference must be made to the particular articles, such as ARPACHSHAD; EBER; ABRAHAM; HAMMURABI; ASSYRIA; BABYLONIA; BAAL; ASHTORETH; ASHERIM; MOLOCH; CHEMOSH; CHIUN; ISRAEL, RELIGION OF etc. The literature on the subject is vast, interesting and far from conclusive. Few of the Bible Dictionaries have articles on this particular subject; reference should be made to those in the Standard and in the HDB, volume both by McCurdy; “Semites” in Catholic Encyclopedia skims the surface; articles in International Enc are good. In Old Testament Theologies, Davidson, pp. 249-52; Schultz, chapter iii of volume I; Riehm, Alttestamentliche Theologie; Delitzsch, Psychology of the Old Testament. For language see Wright's Comparative Grammar of Semitic Languages. For history and religion: Maspero's three volumes; McCurdy, HPM; Hommel. Ancient Hebrew Tradition, and Semitic Volker u. Sprache; Jastrow, Comparative Semitic Religion; Friedr. Delitzsch, Babel u. Bibel; W. R. Smith, Religion of the Semites.

Senaah

sḗ-nā´a, sen´ā́-a (סנאה, ṣ^enā'āh; Codex Vaticanus Σαανά, Sananá; Σανανάτ, Sananát; Codex Alexandrinus Σανανά, Sananá, Σενναά, Sennaá, Ἁσάν, Hasán): The children of Senaah are mentioned as having formed part of the company returning from the captivity with Zerubbabel (Ezr_2:35; Neh_7:38). The numbers vary as given by Ezr (3, 630) and Neh (3, 930), while 1 Esdras 5:23 puts them at 3, 330. In the last place the name is Sanaas, the King James Version “Annaas” (Codex Vaticanus Σαμά, Samá; Codex Alexandrinus Σανάας, Sanáas). In Neh_3:3 the name occurs with the definite article, ha-senaah. The people may be identical with the Benjamite clan Hassenuah (1Ch_9:7). Eusebius, in Onomasticon, speaks of Magdalsenna a village about 7 miles North of Jericho, which may be the place intended; but the site is not known.

Senate; Senator

sen´ā́t, sen´a-tẽr: In Psa_105:22, “teach his senators (the Revised Version (British and American) “elders”) wisdom.” The Hebrew is זקן, zāḳēn, “elder” Septuagint πρεσβύτεροι, presbúteroi). In Act_5:21, “called the council together and all the senate of the children of Israel.” The Greek γερουσία, gerousía, is here evidently used as a more precise equivalent of the foregoing “council” (συνέδριον, sunédrion), to which it is added by kaí, explicative. Reference is had to the Sanhedrin. See SANHEDRIN. This term gerousia occurs in Septuagint Exo_3:16, etc., and in 1 Macc 12:6; 2 Macc 1:10; 4:44 of the supreme council of the Jews (see GOVERNMENT). In 1 Macc 8:15; 12:3, βουλευτήριον, bouleutḗrion, is used of the Roman senate, which is said to consist of 320 members meeting daily, consulting always for the people, to the end that they may be well governed. These statements are not quite accurate, since the senate consisted normally of 300 members, and met not daily, but on call of the magistrates. Originally, like the gerousia of the Jews, the representatives of families and clans (gentes), the senators were subsequently the ex-magistrates, supplemented, to complete the tale of members, by representatives of patrician (in time also of plebeian) families selected by the censor. The tenure was ordinarily for life, though it might be terminated for cause by the censor. Although constitutionally the senate was only an advisory body, its advice (senatus consultum, auctoritas) in fact became in time a mandate which few dared to disregard. During the republican period the senate practically ruled Rome; under the empire it tended more and more to become the creature and subservient tool of the emperors.

Seneh

sē´ne (סנה, ṣeneh; Σεννά, Senná): This was the name attaching to the southern of the two great cliffs between which ran the gorge of Michmash (1Sa_14:4). The name means “acacia,” and may have been given to it from the thorn bushes growing upon it. Josephus (BJ, V, ii, 1) mentions the “plain of thorns” near Gabathsaul. We may hear an echo of the old name in that of Wâdy Suweinit, “valley of the little thorn tree,” the name by which the gorge is known today. The cliff must have stood on the right side of the wady; see BOZEZ. Conder gives an excellent description of the place in Tent Work in Palestine, II, 112-14.

Senir

sē´nir (שׂניר, s^enīr; Σανείρ, Saneír): This was the Amorite name of Mt. Hermon, according to Deu_3:9 (the King James Version “Shenir”).' But in 1Ch_5:23; Son_4:8, we have Senir and Hermon named as distinct mountains. It seems probable, however, that Senir applied to a definite part of the Anti-Lebanon or Hermon range. An inscription of Shalmaneser tells us that Hazael, king of Damascus, fortified Mt. Senir over against Mt. Lebanon. So in Eze_27:5, Senir, whence the Tyrians got planks of fir trees, is set over against Lebanon, where cedars were obtained. The Arab geographers give the name Jebel Sanīr to the part of the Anti-Lebanon range which lies between Damascus and Homs (Yakut, circa 1225 AD, quoted by Guy le Strange in Palestine under the Moslems, 79. He also quotes Mas'udi, 943 AD, to the effect that Baalbek is in the district of Senir, 295).

Sennacherib

se-nak´ẽr-ib (סנחריב, ṣanḥērībh; Σενναχηρείμ, Sennachēreím, Assyrian Sin-akhierba, “the moon-god Sin has increased the brothers”): Sennacherib (704-682 BC) ascended the throne of Assyria after the death of his father Sargon. Appreciating the fact that Babylon would be difficult to control, instead of endeavoring to conciliate the people he ignored them. The Babylonians, being indignant, crowned a man of humble origin, Marduk-zâkir-shum by name. He ruled only a month, having been driven out by the irrepressible Merodach-baladan, who again appeared on the scene.

In order to fortify himself against Assyria the latter sent an embassy to Hezekiah, apparently for the purpose of inspiring the West to rebel against Assyria (2Ki_20:12-19).

Sennacherib in his first campaign marched into Babylonia. He found Merodach-baladan entrenched at Kish, about 9 miles from Babylon, and defeated him; after which he entered the gates of Babylon, which had been thrown open to him. He placed a Babylonian, named Bêl-ibni, on the throne.

This campaign was followed by an invasion of the country of the Cassites and Iasubigalleans. In his third campaign he directed his attention to the West, where the people had become restless under the Assyrian yoke. Hezekiah had been victorious over the Philistines (2Ki_18:8). In preparation to withstand a siege, Hezekiah had built a conduit to bring water within the city walls (2Ki_20:20). Although strongly opposed by the prophet Isaiah, gifts were sent to Egypt, whence assistance was promised (Isa_30:1-4). Apparently also the Phoenicians and Philistines, who had been sore pressed by Assyria, had made provision to resist Assyria. The first move was at Ekron, where the Assyrian governor Padi was put into chains and sent to Hezekiah at Jerusalem.

Sennacherib, in 701 BC, moved against the cities in the West. He ravaged the environs of Tyre, but made no attempt to take the city, as he was without a naval force. After Elulaeus the king of Sidon fled, the city surrendered without a battle, and Ethbaal was appointed king. Numerous cities at once sent presents to the king of Assyria. Ashkelon and other cities were taken. The forces of Egypt were routed at Eltekeh, and Ekron was destroyed. He claims to have conquered 46 strongholds of Hezekiah's territory, but he did not capture Jerusalem, for concerning the king he said, in his annals, “himself like a bird in a cage in Jerusalem, his royal city, I penned him.” He states, also, how he reduced his territory, and how Hezekiah sent to him 30 talents of gold and 800 talents of silver, besides hostages.

The Biblical account of this invasion is found in 2 Ki 18:13 through 19:37; Isa 36; 37. The Assyrian account differs considerably from it; but at the same time it corroborates it in many details. One of the striking parallels is the exact amount of gold which Hezekiah sent to the Assyrian king (see The Expository Times, XII, 225, 405; XIII, 326).

In the following year Sennacherib returned to Babylonia to put down a rebellion by Bêl-ibni and Merodach-baladan. The former was sent to Assyria, and the latter soon afterward died. Ashurnadin-shum, the son of Sennacherib, was then crowned king of Babylon. A campaign into Cilicia and Cappadocia followed.

In 694 BC Sennacherib attacked the Elamites, who were in league with the Babylonians. In revenge, the Elamites invaded Babylonia and carried off Ashur-nâdin-shum to Elam, and made Nergalushêzib king of Babylon. He was later captured and in turn carried off to Assyria. In 691 BC Sennacherib again directed his attention to the South, and at Khalute fought with the combined forces. Two years later he took Babylon, and razed it to the ground.

In 681 BC Sennacherib was murdered by his two sons (2Ki_19:37; see SHAREZER). Esar-haddon their younger brother, who was at the time conducting a campaign against Ararat, was declared king in his stead.

Senses

sen´siz: The translation of αἰσθητήριον, aisthētḗrion (Heb_5:14, “those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern good and evil”). The word means, primarily, the seat of the senses, the region of feeling; in the Septuagint of Jer_4:19, it represents the Hebrew ḳīr, “the walls of the heart” (see the Revised Version (British and American)), and is used to denote the internal sense or faculty of perceiving and judging, which in Heb_5:14 is regarded as becoming perfected by use or exercise (compare Eph_4:12 f; 1Ti_4:7; 2Pe_3:18).

In 2 Esdras 10:36 we have “Or is my sense deceived, or my soul in a dream?” Latin sensus, here “mind” rather than “sense.”

Sensual

sen´shoo-al (ψυχικός, psuchikós, “animal,” “natural”): Biblical psychology has no English equivalent for this Greek original. Man subject to the lower appetites is σαρκικός, sarkikós, “fleshly”; in the communion of his spirit with God he is πνευμακικός, pneumatikós, “spiritual.” Between the two is the ψυχή, psuchḗ, “soul,” the center of his personal being. This ego or “I”in each man is bound to the spirit, the higher nature; and to the body or lower nature.

The soul (psuchē) as the seat of the senses, desires, affections, appetites, passions, i.e. the lower animal nature common to man with the beasts, was distinguished in the Pythagorean and Platonic philosophy from the higher rational nature (noús, pneúma).

The subjection of the soul to the animal nature is man's debasement, to the spirit indwelt of God is his exaltation. The English equivalent for psuchikos, “psychic” does not express this debasement. In the New Testament “sensual” indicates man's subjection to self and self-interest, whether animal or intellectual - the selfish man in whom the spirit is degraded into subordination to the debased psuchē, “soul.” This debasement may be (1) intellectual, “not wisdom ... from above, but ... earthly, sensual” (Jam_3:15); (2) carnal (and of course moral), “sensual, having not the Spirit” (Jud_1:19). It ranges all the way from sensuous self-indulgence to gross immorality. In the utter subjection of the spirit to sense it is the utter exclusion of God from the life. Hence, “the natural (psuchikos) man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God” (1Co_2:14). The term is equivalent to “the mind of the flesh” (Rom_8:7) which “is not subject to the law of God.” See PSYCHOLOGY.

Sent

(שׁלח, shālaḥ; ἀποστέλλω, apostéllō): “Sent” in the Old Testament is the translation of shālaḥ, “to send” (of presents, messengers, etc., Gen_32:18; Gen_44:3; Jdg_6:14; 1Ki_14:6; Est_3:13; Pro_17:11; Jer_49:14; Eze_3:5; Eze_23:40; Dan_10:11; Oba_1:1); of shelaḥ, Aramaic (Ezr_7:14; Dan_5:24); of shilluḥīm, “sending” (Exo_18:2); in the New Testament of apostellō, “to send off” or “away,” “to send forth” (Joh_9:7, “the pool of Siloam (which is by interpretation, Sent)”); compare Luk_13:4; Neh_3:15, the pool of Siloah, the Revised Version (British and American) “Shelah”; Isa_8:6, “the waters of Shiloah that go softly,” where Septuagint has Silōam for Hebrew shilōaḥ, “a sending,” which, rather than “Sent,” is the original meaning - a sending forth of waters. See SILOAM}. “Sent” is also the translation of apóstolos, “one sent forth” (the original of the familiar word “apostle”); in Joh_13:16, “one that is sent” (margin, “Greek 'an apostle'“); compare Heb_1:14.

Sentence

sen´tens: Eight Hebrew and three Greek words are thus translated in the King James Version. Sometimes it points to a mystery (Dan_5:12; Dan_8:23); then again to the contents of the Law (Deu_17:11); then again to the idea of judgment (Psa_17:2) or of a judicial sentence (2Co_1:9; Luk_23:24), or of judicial advice (Act_15:19, the American Standard Revised Version “judgment”).

Senuah

sḗ-nū´a, sen´ū́-a (סנוּאה, ṣ^enū'āh): In the King James Version “A Benjamite” (Neh_11:9); the Revised Version (British and American) has “Hassenuah,” transliterating the definite article the King James Version is to be preferred (compare 1Ch_9:7).

Seorim

sḗ-ō´rim, sḗ-ôr´im (שׂערים, s^e‛ōrīm): The name borne by one of the (post-exilic) priestly courses (1Ch_24:8).

Separate

sep´a-rā́t: The translation of a number of Hebrew and Greek words, בּדל, bādhal (Lev_20:24, etc.), and ἀφορίζω, aphorizō (Mat_25:32, etc.), being the most common. “To separate” and “to consecrate” were originally not distinguished (e.g. Num_6:2 margin), and probably the majority of the uses of “separate” in English Versions of the Bible connote “to set apart for God.” But precisely the same term that is used in this sense may also denote the exact opposite (e.g. the use of nazar in Eze_14:7 and Zec_7:3). See HOLY; NAZIRITE; SAINT.

Separation

sep-a-rā´shun: In the Pentateuch the word niddah specially points to a state of ceremonial uncleanness (Lev_12:2, Lev_12:5; Lev_15:20 ff; Num_6:4 ff; Num_12:13; Num_19:21). For a description of the “water of purification,” used for cleansing what was ceremonially unclean (Nu 19), see HEIFER, RED; UNCLEANNESS. For “separation” in the sense of nēzer, see NAZIRITE.

Sephar

sē´far: Only in Gen_10:30 ספרה, ṣ^ephārāh, “toward Sephar”), as the eastern limit of the territory of the sons of Yoktan (Joktan). From the similarity between the names of most of Yoktan's sons and the names of South Arabian towns or districts, it can hardly be doubted that Sephar is represented by the Arabic Ẓafār. The appropriateness of the site seems to outweigh the discrepancy between Arabic ẓ and Hebrew ṣ. But two important towns in South Arabia bear this name. The one lies a little to the South of Ṣan‛ā'. According to tradition it was founded by Shammir, one of the Sabean kings, and for a long time served as the royal seat of the Tubbas. The other Ẓafār stands on the coast in the district of Shiḥr, East of Ḥaḍramaut. The latter is probably to be accepted as the Biblical site.

Sepharad

sḗ-fā´rad, sef´a-rad (ספרד, ṣ^ephārādh): Mentioned in Oba_1:20 as the place of captivity of certain “captives of Jerusalem,” but no clear indication is given of locality. Many conjectures have been made. The Targum of Jonathan identifies with Spain; hence, the Spanish Jews are called Sephardim. Others (Pusey, etc.) have connected it with the “(Tsparda” of the Behistun Inscription, and some have even identified it with “Sardis.” The now generally accepted view is that which connects it with the “Saparda” of the Assyrian inscriptions, though whether this is to be located to the East of Assyria or in Northern Asia Minor is not clear. See Schrader, Cuneiform Inscriptions, II, 145-46; Sayce, HCM, 482-84; articles in DB, HDB, EB, etc.

Sepharvaim

sef-ar-vā´im, sē-far-vā´im (ספרוים, ṣ^epharwayīm: Σεφφαρουάιμ, Sephpharouáim, Σεπφαρουάιμ, Seppharouáim, Σεπφαρούν, Seppharoún, Σεπφαρουμάιν, Seppharoumáin, Ἐπφαρουάιμ, Eppharouáim, Σεπφαρείμ, Sepphareím, the first two being the forms in manuscripts Alexandrinus and Vaticanus respectively, of the passages in Kings, and the last two in Isaiah):

1. Formerly Identified with the Two Babylonian Sippars:

This city, mentioned in 2Ki_17:24; 2Ki_18:34; 2Ki_19:13; Isa_36:19; Isa_37:13, is generally identified with the Sip(p)ar of the Assyrians-Babylonian inscriptions (Zimbir in Sumerian), on the Euphrates, about 16 miles Southwest of Bagdad. It was one of the two great seats of the worship of the Babylonian sun-god Šamaš, and also of the goddesses Išhtar and Anunit, and seems to have had two principal districts, Sippar of Šamaš, and Sippar of Anunit, which, if the identification were correct, would account for the dual termination -ayim, in Hebrew. This site is the modern ‛Abu-Habbah, which was first excavated by the late Hormuzd Rassam in 1881, and has furnished an enormous number of inscriptions, some of them of the highest importance.

2. Difficulties of That Identification:

Besides the fact that the deities of the two cities, Sippar and Sepharvaim, are not the same, it is to be noted that in 2Ki_19:13 the king of Sepharvaim is referred to, and, as far as is known, the Babylonian Sippar never had a king of its own, nor had Akkad, with which it is in part identified, for at least 1,200 years before Sennacherib. The fact that Babylon and Cuthah head the list of cities mentioned is no indication that Sepharvaim was a Babylonian town - the composition of the list, indeed, points the other way, for the name comes after Ava and Hamath, implying that it lay in Syria.

3. Another Suggestion:

Joseph Halevy therefore suggests (ZA, II, 401 ff) that it should be identified with the Sibraim of Eze_47:16, between Damascus and Hamath (the dual implying a frontier town), and the same as the Šabara'in of the Babylonian Chronicle, there referred to as having been captured by Shalmaneser. As, however, Sabara'in may be read Samara'in, it is more likely to have been the Hebrew Shōm^erōn (Samaria), as pointed out by Fried. Delitzsch.

Literature.

See Schrader, The Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Testament, I, 71 f; Kittel on K; Dillmann-Kittel on Isa, at the place; HDB, under the word

Sepharvites

sē´far-vīts, se4&-far´v|4ts (ספרוים, ṣ^epharwīm): In 2Ki_17:31, the inhabitants of SEPHARVAIM (which see), planted by the king of Assyria in Samaria. They continued there to burn their children to their native gods.

Sepphoris

sef´ṓ-ris: A city of Galilee, taken by Josephus (Vita, IX, lxvii, 71) and later destroyed by the son of Varus (Ant., XVII, x, 9).

Septuagint

sep´t̬ū́-a-jint:

I. IMPORTANCE

II. NAME

III. TRADITIONAL ORIGIN

1. Letter of Aristeas

2. Evidence of Aristobulus and Philo

3. Later Accretions

4. Criticism of the Aristeas Story

5. Date

6. Credibility

IV. EVIDENCE OF PROLOGUE TO SIRACH

V. TRANSMISSION OF THE SEPTUAGINT TEXT

1. Early Corruption of the Text

2. Official Revision of Hebrew Text circa 100 AD

3. Adoption of Septuagint by Christians

4. Alternative 2nd-Century Greek Versions

5. Aquila

6. Theodotion

7. Symmachus and Others

8. Origen and the Hexapla

9. Hexaplaric Manuscripts

10. Recensions Known to Jerome

11. Hesychian Recension

12. Lucianic Recension

VI. RECONSTRUCTION OF SEPTUAGINT TEXT; VERSIONS, MANUSCRIPTS AND PRINTED EDITIONS

1. Ancient Versions Made from Septuagint

2. Manuscripts

3. Printed Texts

4. Reconstruction of Original Text

VII. NUMBER, TITLES AND ORDER OF BOOKS

1. Contents

2. Titles

3. Bipartition of Books

4. Grouping and Order of Books

VIII. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VERSION AND ITS COMPONENT PARTS

1. Grouping of Books on Internal Evidence

(1) The Hexateuch

(2) The “Latter” Prophets

(3) Partial Version of the “Former” Prophets

(4) The “Writings”

(5) The Latest Septuagint Translations

2. General Characteristics

IX. SALIENT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE GREEK AND HEBREW TEXTS

1. Sequence

2. Subject-Matter

LITERATURE

I. Importance.

The Greek version of the Old Testament commonly known as the Septuagint holds a unique place among translations. Its importance is manysided. Its chief value lies in the fact that it is a version of a Hebrew text earlier by about a millennium than the earliest dated Hebrew manuscript extant (916 AD), a version, in particular, prior to the formal rabbinical revision of the Hebrew which took place early in the 2nd century AD. It supplies the materials for the reconstruction of an older form of the Hebrew than the Massoretic Text reproduced in our modern Bibles. It is, moreover, a pioneering work; there was probably no precedent in the world's history for a series of translations from one language into another on so extensive a scale. It was the first attempt to reproduce the Hebrew Scriptures in another tongue. It is one of the outstanding results of the breaking-down of international barriers by the conquests of Alexander the Great and the dissemination of the Greek language, which were fraught with such vital consequences for the history of religion. The cosmopolitan city which he founded in the Delta witnessed the first attempt to bridge the gulf between Jewish and Greek thought. The Jewish commercial settlers at Alexandria, forced by circumstances to abandon their language, clung tenaciously to their faith; and the translation of the Scriptures into their adopted language, produced to meet their own needs, had the further result of introducing the outside world to a knowledge of their history and religion. Then came the most momentous event in its history, the starting-point of a new life; the translation was taken over from the Jews by the Christian church. It was the Bible of most writers of the New Testament. Not only are the majority of their express citations from Scripture borrowed from it, but their writings contain numerous reminiscences of its language. Its words are household words to them. It laid for them the foundations of a new religious terminology. It was a potent weapon for missionary work, and, when versions of the Scriptures into other languages became necessary, it was in most cases the Septuagint and not the Hebrew from which they were made. Preeminent among these daughter versions was the Old Latin which preceded the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.), for the most part a direct translation from the Hebrew, was in portions a mere revision of the Old Latin; our Prayer-book version of the Psalter preserves peculiarities of the Septuagint, transmitted through the medium of the Old Latin. The Septuagint was also the Bible of the early Greek Fathers, and helped to mold dogma; it furnished proof-texts to both parties in the Arian controversy. Its language gives it another strong claim to recognition. Uncouth and unclassical as much of it appears, we now know that this is not wholly due to the hampering effects of translation. “Biblical Greek,” once considered a distinct species, is now a rather discredited term. The hundreds of contemporary papyrus records (letters, business and legal documents, etc.) recently discovered in Egypt illustrate much of the vocabulary and grammar and go to show that many so-called “Hebraisms” were in truth integral parts of the koinḗ, or “common language,” i.e. the international form of Greek which, since the time of Alexander, replaced the old dialects, and of which the spoken Greek of today is the lineal descendant. The version was made for the populace and written in large measure in the language of their everyday life.

II. Name.

The name “Septuagint” is an abbreviation of Interpretatio secundum (or juxta) Septuaginta seniores (or viros), i.e. the Greek translation of the Old Testament of which the first installment was, according to the Alexandrian legend (see III, below), contributed by 70 (or 72) elders sent from Jerusalem to Alexandria for the purpose at the request of Ptolemy II. The legend in its oldest form restricts their labors to the Pentateuch but they were afterward credited with the translation of the whole Bible, and before the 4th century it _ had become customary to apply the title to the whole collection: Aug., De Civ. Dei, xviii. 42, “quorum interpretatio ut Septuaginta vocetur iam obtinuit consuetudo” (“whose translation is now by custom called the Septuagint”). The manuscripts refer to them under the abbreviation οἱ ό, hoi ó (“the seventy”), or οἱ οβ, hoi ob́, (“the seventy-two”). The “Septuagint” and the abbreviated form “LXX” have been the usual designations hitherto, but, as these are based on a now discredited legend, they are coming to be replaced by “the Old Testament in Greek,” or “the Alexandrian version” with the abbreviation G.

III. Traditional Origin.

The traditional account of the translation of the Pentateuch is contained in the so-called letter of Aristeas (editions of Greek text, P. Wendland, Teubner series, 1900, and Thackeray in the App. to Swete's Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, 1900, etc.; Wendland's sections cited below appear in Swete's Introduction, edition 2; English translation by Thackeray, Macmillan, 1904, reprinted from JQR, XV, 337, and by H. T. Andrews in Charles' Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, II, 83-122, Oxford, 1913).

1. Letter of Aristeas:

The writer professes to be a high official at the court of Ptolemy Philadelphus (285-247 BC), a Greek interested in Jewish antiquities. Addressing his brother Philocrates he describes an embassy to Jerusalem on which he has recently been sent with another courtier Andreas. According to his narrative, Demetrius of Phalerum, a prominent figure in later Athenian history, who here appears as the royal librarian at Alexandria, convinced the king of the importance of securing for his library a translation of the Jewish Law. The king at the same time, to propitiate the nation from whom he was asking a favor, consented, on the suggestion of Aristeas, to liberate all Jewish slaves in Egypt. Copies follow of the letters which passed between Ptolemy and Eleazar, the high priest at Jerusalem. Ptolemy requests Eleazar to select and dispatch to Alexandria 72 elders, proficient in the Law, 6 from each tribe, to undertake the translation the importance of the task requiring the services of a large number to secure an accurate version Eleazar complies with the request and the names of the selected translators are appended to his letter.

There follow: (1) a detailed description of votive offerings sent by Ptolemy for the temple; (2) a sketch of Jerusalem, the temple and its services, and the geography of Palestine, doubtless reflecting in part the impressions of an eyewitness and giving a unique picture of the Jewish capital in the Ptolemaic era; (3) an exposition by Eleazar of portions of the Law.

The translators arrive at Alexandria, bringing a copy of the Law written in letters of gold on rolls of skins, and are honorably received by Ptolemy. A seven days' banquet follows, at which the king tests the proficiency of each in turn with hard questions. Three days later Demetrius conducts them across the mole known as the Heptastadion to the island of Pharos, where, with all necessaries provided for their convenience, they complete their task, as by a miracle, in 72 days; we are expressly told that their work was the result of collaboration and comparison. The completed version was read by Demetrius to the Jewish community, who received it with enthusiasm and begged that a copy might be entrusted to their leaders; a solemn curse was pronounced on any who should venture to add to or subtract from or make any alteration in the translation. The whole version was then read aloud to the king who expressed his admiration and his surprise that Greek writers had remained in ignorance of its contents; he directed that the books should be preserved with scrupulous care.

2. Evidence of Aristobulus and Philo:

To set beside this account we have two pre-Christian allusions in Jewish writings. Aristobulus, addressing a Ptolemy who has been identified as Philometor (182-146 BC), repeats the statement that the Pentateuch was translated under Philadelphus at the instance of Demetrius Phalereus (Eusebius, Praep. Ev., XIII, 12, 664b); but the genuineness of the passage is doubtful. If it is accepted, it appears that some of the main features of the story were believed at Alexandria within a century of the date assigned by “Aristeas” to the translation Philo (Vit. Moys, ii. 5 ff) repeats the story of the sending of the translators by Eleazar at the request of Philadelphus, adding that in his day the completion of the undertaking was celebrated by an annual festival on the isle of Pharos. It is improbable that an artificial production like the Aristeas letter should have occasioned such an anniversary; Philo's evidence seems therefore to rest in part on an independent tradition. His account in one particular paves the way for later accretions; he hints at the inspiration of the translators and the miraculous agreement of their separate VSS: “They prophesied like men possessed, not one in one way and one in another, but all producing the same words and phrases as though some unseen prompter were at the ears of each.” At the end of the 1st century AD Josephus includes in his Antiquities (XII, ii, 1 ff) large portions of the letter, which he paraphrases, but does not embellish.

3. Later Accretions:

Christian writers accepted the story without suspicion and amplified it. A catena of their evidence is given in an Appendix to Wendland's edition. The following are their principal additions to the narrative, all clearly baseless fabrications.

(1) The translators worked independently, in separate cells, and produced identical versions, Ptolemy proposing this test of their trustworthiness. So Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Augustine, the Chronicon Paschale and the Cohortatio ad Graecos (wrongly attributed to Justin); the author of the last work asserts that he had seen the cells and heard the tradition on the spot. (2) A modification of this legend says that the translators worked in pairs in 36 cells. So Epiphanius (died 403 AD), and later G. Syncellus, Julius Pollux and Zonaras. Epiphanius' account is the most detailed. The translators were locked up in sky-lighted cells in pairs with attendants and shorthand writers; each pair was entrusted with one book, the books were then circulated, and 36 identical versions of the whole Bible, canonical and apocryphal books, were produced; Ptolemy wrote two letters, one asking for the original Scriptures, the second for translators. (3) This story of the two embassies appears already in the 2nd century AD, in Justin's Apology, and (4) the extension of the translators' work to the Prophets or the whole Bible recurs in the two Cyrils and in Chrysostom. (5) The miraculous agreement of the translators proved them to be no less inspired than the authors (Irenaeus, etc.; compare Philo). (6) As regards date, Clement of Alexandria quotes an alternative tradition referring the version back to the time of the first Ptolemy (322-285 BC); while Chrysostom brings it down to “a hundred or more years (elsewhere “not many years”) before the coming of Christ.” Justin absurdly states that Ptolemy's embassy was sent to King Herod; the Chronicon Paschale calls the high priest of the time Onias Simon, brother of Eleazar.

Jerome was the first to hold these later inventions up to ridicule, contrasting them with the older and more sober narrative. They indicate a growing oral tradition in Jewish circles at Alexandria. The origin of the legend of the miraculous consensus of the 70 translators has been reasonably sought in a passage in Ex 24 Septuagint to which Epiphanius expressly refers. We there read of 70 elders of Israel, not heard of again, who with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu form a link between Moses and the people. After reciting the Book of the Covenant Moses ascends to the top of the mount; the 70, however, ascend but a little way and are bidden to worship from afar: according to the Septuagint text “They saw the place where the God of Israel stood ... and of the elect of Israel not one perished” (Exo_24:11), i.e. they were privileged to escape the usual effect of a vision of the Deity (Exo_33:20). But the verb used for “perish” (diaphōneín) was uncommon in this sense; “not one disagreed” would be the obvious meaning; hence, apparently the legend of the agreement of the translators, the later intermediaries between Moses and Israel of the Dispersion. When the translations were recited, “no difference was discoverable,” says Epiphanius, using the same verb, cave-dwellings in the island of Pharos probably account for the legend of the cells. A curious phenomenon has recently suggested that there is an element of truth in one item of Epiphanius' obviously incredible narrative, namely, the working of the translators in pairs. The Greek books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel fall into two nearly equal parts, apparently the work of separate translators (see VIII, 1, (2), below); while in Exodus, Leviticus and Psalms orthographical details indicate a similar division of the books for clerical purposes. There was, it seems, a primitive custom of transcribing each book on 2 separate rolls, and in the case of Jeremiah and Ezekiel the practice goes back to the time of translation (JTS, IV, 245 ff, 398 ff; IX, 88 ff).

4. Criticism of the Aristeas Story:

Beside the later extravagances, the story of Aristeas appears comparatively rational. Yet it has long been recognized that much of it is unhistorical, in particular the professed date and nationality of the writer. Its claims to authenticity were demolished by Dr. Hody two centuries ago (De bibliorum textibus originalibus, Oxon., 1705). Clearly the writer is not a Greek, but a Jew, whose aim is to glorify his race and to disseminate information about their sacred books. Yet the story is not wholly to be rejected, though it is difficult to disentangle truth from fiction. On one side his veracity has since Hody's time been established; his court titles, technical terms, epistolary formulas, etc., reappear in Egyptian papyri and inscriptions, and all his references to Alexandrian life and customs are probably equally trustworthy (sections 28, 109 ff, measures to counteract the ill effects upon agriculture of migration from country to town; section 167, treatment of informers (compare section 25); section 175 reception of foreign embassies (compare section 182)). The import of this discovery has, however, since its announcement by Lombroso (Recherches sur l'economie politique de l'Egypte, Turin, 1870), been somewhat modified by the new-found papyri which show that Aristeas' titles and formulas are those of the later, not the earlier, Ptolemaic age.

5. Date:

The letter was used by Josephus and probably known to Philo. How much earlier is it? Schurer (HJP, II, iii, 309 f (GJV⁴, III, 608-16)), relying on (1) the questionable Aristobulus passage, (2) the picture drawn of Palestine as if still under Ptolemaic rule, from which it passed to the Seleucids circa 200 BC, argued that the work could not be later than that date. But it is hard to believe that a fictitious story (as he regards it to be) could have gained credence within little more than half a century of the period to which it relates, and Wendland rightly rejects so ancient an origin. The following indications suggest a date about 100-80 BC.

(1) Many of Aristeas' formulas, etc. (see above), only came into use in the 2nd century BC (Strack, Rhein. Mus., LV, 168 ff; Thackeray, Aristeas, English translation, pp. 3, 12). (2) The later Maccabean age or the end of the 2nd century BC is suggested by some of the translators' names (Wendland, xxvi), and (3) by the independent position of the high priest. (4) Some of Ptolemy's questions indicate a tottering dynasty (section 187, etc.). (5) The writer occasionally forgets his role and distinguishes between his own time and that of Philadelphus (sections 28, 182). (6) He appears to borrow his name from a Jewish historian of the 2nd century BC and to wish to pass off the latter's history as his own (section 6). (7) He is guilty of historical inaccuracies concerning Demetrius, etc. (8) The prologue to the Greek Ecclesiasticus (after 132 BC) ignores and contradicts the Aristeas story, whereas Aristeas possibly used this prologue (Wendland, xxvii; compare Hart, Ecclesiasticus in Greek, 1909). (9) The imprecation upon any who should alter the translation (section 311) points to divergences of text which the writer desired to check; compare section 57, where he seems to insist on the correctness of the Septuagint text of Exo_25:22, “gold of pure gold,” as against the Hebrew. (10) Allusions to current criticisms of the Pentateuch (sections 128, 144) presuppose a familiarity with it on the part of non-Jewish readers only explicable if the Septuagint had long been current. (11) Yet details in the Greek orthography preclude a date much later than 100 BC.

6. Credibility:

The probable amount of truth in the story is ably discussed by Swete (Intro, 16-22). The following statements in the letter may be accepted: (1) The translation was produced at Alexandria, as is conclusively proved by Egyptian influence on its language. (2) The Pentateuch was translated first and, in view of the homogeneity of style, as a whole. (3) The Greek Pentateuch goes back to the first half of the 3rd century BC; the style is akin to that of the 3rd-century papyri, and the Greek Genesis was used by the Hellenist Demetrius toward the end of the century. (4) The Hebrew rolls were brought from Jerusalem. (5) Possibly Philadelphus, the patron of literature, with his religious impartiality, may have countenanced the work. But the assertion that it owed its inception wholly to him and his librarian is incredible; it is known from other sources that Demetrius Phalereus did not fill the office of librarian under that monarch. The language is that of the people, not a literary style suitable to a work produced under royal patronage. The importation of Palestinian translators is likewise fictitious. Dr. Swete acutely observes that Aristeas, in stating that the translation was read to and welcomed by the Jewish community before being presented to the king, unconsciously reveals its true origin. It was no doubt produced to meet their own needs by the large Jewish colony at Alexandria. A demand that the Law should be read in the synagogues in a tongue “understanded of the people” was the originating impulse.

IV. Evidence of Prologue to Sirach.

The interesting, though in places tantalizingly obscure, prologue to Ecclesiasticus throws light on the progress made with the translation of the remaining Scriptures before the end of the 2nd century BC.

The translator dates his settlement in Egypt, during which he produced his version of his grandfather's work, as “the 38th year under Euergetes the king.” The words have been the subject of controversy, but, with the majority of critics, we may interpret this to mean the 38th year of Euergetes II, reckoning from the beginning (170 BC) of his joint reign with Philometor, i.e. 132 BC. Euergetes I reigned for 25 years only. Others, in view of the superfluous preposition, suppose that the age of the translator is intended, but the cumbrous form of expression is not unparalleled. A recent explanation of the date (Hart, Ecclesiasticus in Greek) as the 38th year of Philadelphus which was also the 1st year of Euergetes I (i.e. 247 BC) is more ingenious than convincing.

The prologue implies the existence of a Greek version of the Law; the Prophets and “the rest of the books.” The translator, craving his readers' indulgence for the imperfections of his own work, due to the difficulty of reproducing Hebrew in Greek, adds that others have experienced the same difficulties: “The Law itself and the prophecies and the rest of the books have no small difference when spoken in their original language.” From these words we may understand that at the time of writing (132-100 BC) Alexandrian Jews possessed Greek versions of a large part (probably not the whole) of “the Prophets,” and of some of “the Writings” or Hagiographa. For some internal evidence as to the order in which the several books were translated see VIII, below.

V. Transmission of the Septuagint Text.

The main value of the Septuagint is its witness to an older Hebrew text than our own. But before we can reconstruct this Hebrew text we need to have a pure Greek text before us, and this we are at present far from possessing. The Greek text has had a long and complex history of its own. Used for centuries by both Jews and Christians it underwent corruption and interpolation, and, notwithstanding the multitude of materials for its restoration, the original text has yet to be recovered. We are much more certain of the ipsissima verba of the New Testament writers than of the original Alexandrian version of the Old Testament. This does not apply to all portions alike. The Greek Pentateuch, e.g., has survived in a relatively pure form. But everywhere we have to be on our guard against interpolations, sometimes extending to whole paragraphs. Not a verse is without its array of variant readings. An indication of the amount of “mixture” which has taken place is afforded by the numerous “doublets” or alternative renderings of a single Hebrew word or phrase which appear side by side in the transmitted text.

1. Early Corruption of the Text:

Textual corruption began early, before the Christian era. We have seen indications of this in the letter of Aristeas (III, 5, (9) above). Traces of corruption appear in Philo (e.g. his comment, in Quis Rer. Div. Her. 56, on Gen_15:15, shows that already in his day tapheís, “buried,” had become tapheís, “nurtured,” as in all our manuscripts); doublets already exist. Similarly in the New Testament the author of Hebrews quotes (Heb_12:15) a corrupt form of the Greek of Deu_29:18.

2. Official Revision of Hebrew Text Circa 100 AD:

But it was not until the beginning of the 2nd century AD that the divergence between the Greek and the Palestinian Hebrew text reached an acute stage. One cause of this was the revision of the Hebrew text which took place about this time. No actual record of this revision exists, but it is beyond doubt that it originated in the rabbinical school, of which Rabbi Akiba was the chief representative, and which had its center at Jamnia in the years following the destruction of Jerusalem. The Jewish doctors, their temple in ruins, concentrated their attention on the settlement of the text of the Scriptures which remained to them. This school of eminent critics, precursors of the Massoretes, besides settling outstanding questions concerning the Canon, laid down strict rules for Biblical interpretation, and in all probability established an official text.

3. Adoption of Septuagint by Christians:

But another cause widened still farther the distance between the texts of Jerusalem and Alexandria. This was the adoption of the Septuagint by the Christian church. When Christians began to cite the Alexandrian version in proof of their doctrines, the Jews began to question its accuracy. Hence, mutual recriminations which are reflected in the pages of Justin's Dialogue with Trypho. “They dare to assert,” says Justin (Dial., 68), “that the interpretation produced by your seventy elders under Ptolemy of Egypt is in some points inaccurate.” A crucial instance cited by the Jews was the rendering “virgin” in Isa_7:14, where they claimed with justice that “young woman” would be more accurate. Justin retaliates by charging the Jews with deliberate excision of passages favorable to Christianity.

4. Alternative 2nd Century Greek Versions:

That such accusations should be made in those critical years was inevitable, yet there is no evidence of any material interpolations having been introduced by either party. But the Alexandrian version, in view of the revised text and the new and stricter canons of interpretation, was felt by the Jews to be inadequate, and a group of new translations of Scripture in the 2nd century AD supplied the demand. We possess considerable fragments of the work of three of these translators, namely, Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, besides scanty remnants of further anonymous versions

5. Aquila:

The earliest of “the three” was Aquila, a proselyte to Judaism, and, like his New Testament namesake, a native of Pontus. He flourished, according to Epiphanius (whose account of these later translators in his De mens. et pond. is not wholly trustworthy), under Hadrian (117-38 AD) and was related to that emperor; there is no probability in Epiphanius' further statement that Hadrian entrusted to Aquila the superintendence of the building of Aelia Capitolina on the site of Jerusalem, that there he was converted to Christianity by Christian exiles returning from Pella, but that refusing to abandon astrology he was excommunicated, and in revenge turned Jew and was actuated by a bias against Christianity in his version of the Old Testament. What is certain is that he was a pupil of the new rabbinical school, in particular of Rabbi Akiba (95-135 AD), and that his version was an attempt to reproduce exactly the revised official text. The result was an extraordinary production, unparalleled in Greek literature, if it can be classed under that category at all. No jot or tittle of the Hebrew might be neglected; uniformity in the translation of each Hebrew word must be preserved and the etymological kinship of different Hebrew words represented. Such were some of his leading principles. The opening words of his translation (Gen_1:1) may be rendered: “In heading rounded God with the heavens and with the earth.” “Heading” or “summary” was selected because the Hebrew word for “beginning” was a derivative of “head.” “With” represents an untranslatable word ('ēth) prefixed to the accusative case, but indistinguishable from the preposition “with.” The Divine Name (the tetragrammaton, YHWH) was not translated, but written in archaic Hebrew characters. “A slave to the letter,” as Origen calls him, his work has aptly been described by a modern writer as “a colossal crib” (Burkitt, JQR, October, 1896, 207 ff). Yet it was a success. In Origen's time it was used by all Jews ignorant of Hebrew, and continued in use for several centuries; Justinian expressly sanctioned its use in the synagogues (Nov., 146). Its lack of style and violation of the laws of grammar were not due to ignorance of Greek, of which the writer shows, in vocabulary at least, a considerable command. Its importance lay and lies (so far as it is preserved) in its exact reproduction of the rabbinical text of the 2nd century AD; it may be regarded as the beginning of the scientific study of the Hebrew Scriptures. Though “a bold attempt to displace the Septuagint,” it cannot be charged with being intentionally antagonistic to Christianity. Of the original work, previously known only from extracts in manuscripts, some palimpsest fragments were recovered from the Cairo Genizah in 1897 and edited by F. C. Burkitt (Fragments of the Books of Kings, 1897) and by C. Taylor (Sayings of the Jewish Fathers², 1897; Hebrew-Greek Cairo Genizah Palimpsests, 1900). The student of Swete's Old Testament will trace Aquila's unmistakable style in the footnotes to the Books of Samuel and Kings; the older and shorter B text in those books has constantly been supplemented in the A text from Aquila. A longer specimen of his work occurs in the Greek Ecclesiastes, which has no claim to be regarded as “Septuagint”; Jerome refers to a second edition of Aquila's version, and the Greek Ecclesiastes is perhaps his first edition of that book, made on the basis of an unrevised Hebrew text (McNeile, Introduction to Ecclesiastes, Cambridge, 1904, App. I). The suggested identification of Aquila with Onkelos, author of the Targum of that name, has not been generally accepted.

6. Theodotion:

Epiphanius' account of the dates and history of Theodotion and Symmachus is untrustworthy. He seems to have reversed their order, probably misled by the order of the translations, in the columns of the Hexapla (see below). He also apparently confused Aquila and Theodotion in calling the latter a native of Pontus. As regards date, Theodotion, critics are agreed, preceded Symmachus and probably flourished under M. Aurelius (161-80), whereas Symmachus lived under Commodus (180-92); Irenaeus mentions only the versions of Aquila and Theodotion, and that of Symmachus had in his day either not been produced or at least not widely circulated. According to the more credible account of Irenaeus, Theodotion was an Ephesian and a convert to Judaism. His version constantly agrees with the Septuagint and was rather a revision of it, to bring it into accord with the current Hebrew text, than an independent work. The supplementing of lacunae in the Septuagint (due partly to the fact that the older version of some books did not aim at completeness) gave scope for greater originality. These lacunae were greatest in Job and his version of that book was much longer than the Septuagint. The text of Job printed in Swete's edition is a patchwork of old and new; the careful reader may detect the Theodotion portions by transliterations and other peculiarities. Long extracts from Theodotion are preserved in codex Q in Jeremiah. As regards the additional matter contained in Septuagint, Theodotion was inconsistent; he admitted, e.g., the additions to Daniel (Sus, Bel and the Dragon, and the Song of Three Children), but did not apparently admit the non-canonical books as a whole. The church adopted his Daniel in place of the inadequate Septuagint version, which has survived in only one Greek manuscript; but the date when the change took place is unknown and the early history of the two Greek texts is obscure. Theodotion's renderings have been found in writings before his time (including the New Testament), and it is reasonably conjectured that even before the 2nd century AD the Septuagint text had been discarded and that Theodotion's version is but a working over of an older alternative version Theodotion is free from the barbarisms of Aquila, but is addicted to transliteration, i.e. the reproduction of Hebrew words in Greek letters: His reasons for this habit are not always clear; ignorance of Hebrew will not account for all (compare VIII, 1, (5), below).

7. Symmachus and Others:

Beside the two versions produced by, and primarily intended for, Jews was a third, presumably to meet the needs of a Jewish Christian sect who were dissatisfied with the Septuagint. Symmachus, its author, was, according to the more trustworthy account, an Ebionite, who also wrote a commentary on Matthew, a copy of which was given to Origen by Juliana, a lady who received it from its author (Euseb., HE, VI, 17). Epiphanius' description of him as a Samaritan convert to Judaism may be rejected. The date of his work, as above stated, was probably the reign of Commodus (180-192 AD). In one respect the version resembled Aquila's, in its faithful adherence to the sense of the current Hebrew text; its style, however, which was flowing and literary, was a revolt against Aquila's monstrosities. It seems to have been a recasting of Aquila's version, with free use of both Septuagint and Theodotion. It carried farther a tendency apparent in the Septuagint to refine away the anthropomorphisms of the Old Testament.

Of three other manuscripts discovered by Origen (one at Nicopolis in Greece, one at Jericho) and known from their position in the Hexapla as Quinta, Sexta, and Septima, little is known. There is no reason to suppose that they embraced the whole Old Testament. Quinta is characterized by Field as the most elegant of the Greek versions F.C. Burkitt has discussed “the so-called Quinta of 4 Kings” in PSBA, June, 1902. The Christian origin of Sexta betrays itself in Hab_3:13 (“Thou wentest forth to save thy people for the sake of (or “by”) Jesus thy anointed One”).

8. Origen and the Hexapla:

These later versions play a large part in the history of the text of the Septuagint. This is due to the labors of the greatest Septuagint scholar of antiquity, the celebrated Origen of Alexandria, whose active life covers the first half of the 3rd century. Origen frankly recognized, and wished Christians to recognize, the merits of the later VSS, and the divergences between the Septuagint and the current Hebrew. He determined to provide the church with the materials for ascertaining the true text and meaning of the Old Testament. With this object he set himself to learn Hebrew - a feat probably unprecedented among non-Jewish Christians of that time - and to collect the later versions The idea of using these versions to amend the Septuagint seemed to him an inspiration: “By the gift of God we found a remedy for the divergence in the copies of the Old Testament, namely to use the other editions as a criterion” (Commentary on Mat_15:14). The magnum opus in which he embodied the results of his labors was known as the Hexapla or “six-column” edition. This stupendous work has not survived; a fragment was discovered toward the end of the 19th century in the Ambrosian Library at Milan (Swete, Introduction, 61 ff) and another among the Cairo Genizah palimpsests (ed C. Taylor, Cambridge, 1900). The material was arranged in six parallel columns containing (1) the current Hebrew text, (2) the same in Greek letters, (3) the version of Aquila, (4) that of Symmachus, (5) that of the Septuagint, (6) that of Theodotion. The text was broken up into short clauses; not more than two words, usually one only, stood in the first column. The order of the columns doubtless represents the degree of conformity to the Hebrew; Aquila's, as the most faithful, heads the VSS, and Symmachus' is on the whole a revision of Aquila as Theodotion's is of the Septuagint. But Origen was not content with merely collating the VSS; his aim was to revise the Septuagint and the 5th column exhibited his revised text. The basis of it was the current Alexandrian text of the 3rd century AD; this was supplemented or corrected where necessary by the other versions Origen, however, deprecated alteration of a text which had received ecclesiastical sanction, without some indication of its extent, and the construction of the 5th column presented difficulties. There were (1) numerous cases of words or paragraphs contained in the Septuagint but not in the Hebrew, which could not be wholly rejected, (2) cases of omission from the Septuagint of words in the Hebrew, (3) cases of paraphrase and minor divergences, (4) variations in the order of words or chapters. Origen here had recourse to a system of critical signs, invented and employed by the grammarian Aristarchus (3rd century BC) in his edition of Homer. Passages of the first class were left in the text, but had prefixed to them an obelus, a sign of which the original form was a “spit” or “spear,” but figuring in Septuagint manuscripts as a horizontal line usually with a dot above and a dot below; there are other varieties also. The sign in Aristarchus indicated censure, in the Hexapla the doubtful authority of the words which followed. The close of the obelized passage was marked by the metobelus, a colon (:), or, in the Syriac VSS, shaped like a mallet. Passages missing in the Septuagint were supplied from one of the other versions (Aquila or Theodotion), the beginning of the extract being marked by an asterisk - a sign used by Aristarchus to express special approval - the close, by the metobelus. Where Septuagint and Hebrew widely diverged, Origen occasionally gave two VSS, that of a later translator under an asterisk, that of Septuagint obelized. Divergence in order was met by transposition, the Hebrew order being followed; in Proverbs, however, the two texts kept their respective order, the discrepancy being indicated by a combination of signs. Minor supposed or real corruptions in the Greek were tacitly corrected. Origen produced a minor edition, the Tetrapla, without the first two columns of the larger work. The Heptapla and Octapla, occasionally mentioned, appear to be alternative names given to the Hexapla at points where the number of columns was increased to receive other fragmentary versions. This gigantic work, which according to a reasonable estimate must have filled 5,000 leaves, was probably never copied in extenso. The original was preserved for some centuries in the library of Pamphilus at Caesarea; there it was studied by Jerome, and thither came owners of Biblical manuscripts to collate their copies with it, as we learn from some interesting notes in our uncial manuscripts (e.g. a 7th-century note appended to Esther in codex S). The Library probably perished circa 638 AD, when Caesarea fell into the hands of the Saracens.

9. Hexaplaric Manuscripts:

But, though the whole work was too vast to be copied, it was a simple task to copy the 5th column. This task was performed, partly in prison, by Pamphilus, a martyr in the Diocletian persecution, and his friend Eusebius, the great bishop of Caesarea. Copies of the “Hexaplaric” Septuagint, i.e. Origen's doctored text with the critical signs and perhaps occasional notes, were, through the initiative of these two, widely circulated in Palestine in the 4th century. Naturally, however, the signs became unintelligible in a text detached from the parallel columns which explained them; scribes neglected them, and copies of the doctored text, lacking the precautionary symbols, were multiplied. This carelessness has wrought great confusion; Origen is, through others' fault, indirectly responsible for the production of manuscripts in which the current Septuagint text and the later versions are hopelessly mixed. No manuscripts give the Hexaplaric text as a whole, and it is preserved in a relatively pure form in very few: the uncials G and M (Pentatruch and some historical books), the cursives 86 and 88 (Prophets). Other so-called Hexaplaric manuscripts, notably codex Q (Marchalianus: Proph.) preserve fragments of the 5th and of the other columns of the Hexapla. (For the Syro-Hexaplar see below, VI, 1.) Yet, even did we possess the 5th column entire, with the complete apparatus of signs, we should not have “the original Septuagint,” but merely, after removing the asterisked passages, a text current in the 3rd century. The fact has to be emphasized that Origen's gigantic work was framed on erroneous principles. He assumed (1) the purity of the current Hebrew text, (2) the corruption of the current Septuagint text where it deviated from the Hebrew. The modern critic recognizes that the Septuagint on the whole presents the older text, the divergences of which from the Hebrew are largely attributable to an official revision of the latter early in the Christian era. He recognizes also that in some books (e.g. Job) the old Greek version was only a partial one. To reconstruct the original text he must therefore have recourse to other auxiliaries beside Origen.

10. Recensions Known to Jerome:

Such assistance is partly furnished by two other recensions made in the century after Origen. Jerome (Praef. in Paralipp.; compare Adv. Ruf., ii. 27) states that in the 4th century three recensions circulated in different parts of the Christian world: “Alexandria and Egypt in their Septuagint acclaim Hesychius as their authority, the region from Constantinople to Antioch approves the copies of Lucian the martyr, the intermediate Palestinian provinces read the manuscripts which were promulgated by Eusebius and Pamphilus on the basis of Origen's labors, and the whole world is divided between these three varieties of text.”

11. Hesychian Recension:

Hesychius is probably to be identified with the martyr bishop mentioned by Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, VIII, 13) along with another scholar martyr, Phileas bishop of Thmuis, and it is thought that these two were engaged in prison in revising the Egyptian text at the time when Pamphilus and Eusebius were employed on a similar task under similar conditions. How far existing manuscripts preserve the Hesychian recension is uncertain; agreement of their text with that of Egyptian versions and Fathers (Cyril in particular) is the criterion. For the Prophets Ceriani has identified codex Q and its kin as Hesychian. For the Octateuch N. McLean (JTS, II, 306) finds the Hesychian text in a group of cursives, 44, 74, 76, 84, 106, 134, etc. But the first installments of the larger Cambridge Septuagint raise the question whether Codex B (Vaticanus) may not itself be Hesychian; its text is more closely allied to that of Cyril Alex. than to any other patristic text, and the consensus of these two witnesses against the rest is sometimes (Exo_32:14) curiously striking. In the Psalter also Rahlfs (Septuaginta-Studien, 2. Heft, 1907, 235) traces the Hesychian text in B and partially in Codex Sinaiticus. Compare von Soden's theory for the New Testament. See TEXT AND MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

12. Lucianic Recension:

The Lucianic recension was the work of another martyr, Lucian of Antioch (died 311-12), probably with the collaboration of the Hebraist Dorotheus. There are, as Hort has shown, reasons for associating Lucian with a “Syrian” revision of the New Testament in the 4th century, which became the dominant type of text. That he produced a Syrian recension of the Greek Old Testament is expressly stated by Jerome, and we are moreover able with considerable certainty to identify the extant manuscripts which exhibit it. The identification, due to Field and Lagarde, rests on these grounds: (1) certain verses in 2 Kings are in the Arabic Syro-Hexaplar marked with the letter L, and a note explains that the letter indicates Lucianic readings; (2) the readings so marked occur in the cursives 19, 82, 93, 108, 118; (3) these manuscripts in the historical books agree with the Septuagint citations of the Antiochene Fathers Chrysostom and Theodoret. This clue enabled Lagarde to construct a Lucianic text of the historical books (Librorum Vet. Test. canonic. pars prior, Gottingen, 1883); his death prevented the completion of the work. Lagarde's edition is vitiated by the fact that he does not quote the readings of the individual manuscripts composing the group, and it can be regarded only as an approximate reconstruction of “Lucian.” It is evident, however, that the Lucianic Septuagint possessed much the same qualities as the Syrian revision of the New Testament; lucidity and completeness were the main objects. It is a “full” text, the outcome of a desire to include, so far as possible, all recorded matter; “doublets” are consequently numerous. While this “conflation” of texts detracts from its value, the Lucianic revision gains importance from the fact that the sources from which it gleaned include an element of great antiquity which needs to be disengaged; where it unites with the Old Latin version against all other authorities its evidence is invaluable.

VI. Reconstruction of Septuagint Text; Versions, Manuscripts and Printed Editions.

The task of restoring the original text is beset with difficulties. The materials (MSS, VSS, patristic citations) are abundant, but none has escaped “mixture,” and the principles for reconstruction are not yet securely established (Swete, Introduction, I, iv-vi; III, vi).

1. Ancient Versions Made from Septuagint:

Among the chief aids to restoration are the daughter versions made from the Septuagint, and above all the Old Latin (pre-Hieronymian) version, for the earliest (African) Old Latin version dates from the 2nd century AD, i.e. before Origen, and contains a text from which the asterisked passages in Hexaplaric manuscripts are absent; it thus “brings us the best independent proof we have that the Hexaplar signs introduced by Origen can be relied on for the reconstruction of the LXX” (Burkitt). The Old Latin also enables us to recognize the ancient element in the Lucianic recension. But the Latin evidence itself is by no means unanimous. Augustine (De Doctr. Christ., ii. 16) speaks of the infinite variety of Latin VSS; though they may ultimately prove all to fall into two main families, African and European. Peter Sabatier's collection of patristic quotations from the Old Latin is still useful, though needing verification by recent editions of the Fathers. Of Old Latin manuscripts one of the most important is the codex Lugdunensis, edited by U. Robert (Pentateuchi e codex Lugd. versio Latin antiquissima, Paris, 1881; Heptateuchi partis post. versio Latin antiq. e codex Lugd., Lyons, 1900). The student should consult also Burkitt's edition of The Rules of Tyconius (“Texts and Studies,” III, 1, Cambridge, 1894) and The Old Latin and the Itala (ibid., IV, 3, 1896).

Jerome's Vulgate is mainly a direct translation from the Hebrew, but the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) Psalter, the so-called Gallican, is one of Jerome's two revisions of the Old Latin, not his later version from the Hebrew, and some details in our Prayer-book Psalter are ultimately derived through the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) Psalter from the Septuagint. Parts of the Apocrypha (Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees) are also pure Old Latin, untouched by Jerome.

The early date (2nd century AD) once claimed for the Egyptian or Coptic versions (Bohairic, i.e. in the dialect of Lower Egypt, Sahidic or Upper Egyptian and Middle Egyptian) has not been confirmed by later researches, at least as regards the first-named, which is probably not earlier than the 3rd or 4th century AD. Rahlfs (Sept-Studien, II, 1907) identifies the Bohairic Psalter as the Hesychian recension. The Sahidic version of Job has fortunately preserved the shorter text lacking the later insertions from Theodotion (Lagarde, Mittheilungen, 1884, 204); this does not conclusively prove that it is pre-Origenic; it may be merely a Hexaplaric text with the asterisked passages omitted (Burkitt, EB, IV, 5027). The influence bf the Hexapla is traceable elsewhere in this version

The Ethiopic version was made in the main from the Greek and in part at least from an early text; Rahlfs (Sept. Stud., I, 1904) considers its text of S-K, with that of codex B, to be pre-Origenic.

The Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) or Peshitta Syriac version was made from the Hebrew, though partly influenced by the Septuagint. But another Syriac version is of primary importance for the Septuagint text, namely, that of Paul, bishop of Tella (Constantine in Mesopotamia), executed at Alexandria in 616-17 and known as the Syro-Hexaplar. This is a bald Syriac version of the Septuagint column of the Hexapla, containing the Hexaplar signs. A manuscript of the poetical and prophetical books is in the Ambrosian Library at Milan and has been edited by Ceriani (Monumenta sacra et profana, 1874); fragments of the historical books are also extant (Lagarde and Rahlfs, Bibliothecae Syriacae, Gottingen, 1892). This version supplements the Greek Hexaplaric manuscripts and is the principal authority for Origen's text. For the original version of Daniel, which has survived in only one late MS, the Syro-Hexaplar supplies a second and older authority of great value.

The Armenian version (ascribed to the 5th century) also owes its value to its extreme literalness; its text of the Octateuch is largely Hexaplaric.

A bare mention must suffice of the Arabic version (of which the prophetical and poetical books, Job excluded, were rendered from the Septuagint); the fragments of the Gothic version (made from the Lucianic recension), and the Slavonic (partly from Septuagint, also Lucianic) and the Georgian versions.

2. Manuscripts:

For a full description of the Greek manuscripts see Swete, Introduction, I, chapter V. They are divided according to their script (capitals or minuscules) into uncials and cursives, the former ranging from the 4th century (four papyrus scraps go back to the 3rd century; Nestle in Hauck-Herzog, Realencyklopadie fur protestantische Theologie und Kirche, XXIII, 208) to the 10th century AD, the latter from the 9th to the 16th century AD. Complete Bibles are few; the majority contain groups of books only, such as the Pentateuch, Octateuch (Gen-Ruth), the later historical books, the Psalter, the 3 or 5 “Solomonic” books, the Prophets (major, minor or both). Uncials are commonly denoted by capital letters (in the edition of Holmes and Parsons by Roman figures); cursives, of which over 300 are known, by Arabic figures; in the larger Cambridge Septuagint the selected cursives are denoted by small Roman letters.

The following are the chief uncials containing, or which once contained, the whole Bible: B (Vaticanus, at Rome, 4th century AD), adopted as the standard text in all recent editions; Codex Sinaiticus, at Petersburg and Leipzig, 4th century AD), discovered by Tischendorf in 1844 and subsequent years in Catherine's Convent, Mt. Sinai; A (Alexandrinus, British Museum, probably 5th century AD); C (Ephraemi rescriptus, Paris, probably 5th century), a palimpsest, the older Biblical matter underlying a medieval Greek text of works of Ephrem the Syrian. For the Octateuch and historical books: D (Cottonianus, British Museum, probably 5th or 6th century), fragments of an illuminated Gen, the bulk of which perished in a fire at Ashburnham House in 1731, but earlier collations of Grabe and others are extant, which for the lost portions are cited in the Cambridge texts as D (Dsil, i.e. silet Grabius, denotes an inference from Grabe's silence that the manuscript did not contain a variant); F (Ambro-sianus, Milan, 4th to 5th century), fragments of the Octateuch; G (Sarravianus, fragments at Leyden, Paris and Petersburg, 4th to 5th century), important as containing an Origenic text with the Hexaplar signs; L (Purpureus Vindobonensis, Vienna, 5th to 6th century), fragments of an illuminated manuscript Genesis on purple vellum; M (Coislinianus, Paris, 7th century), important on account of its marginal Hexaplaric matter. For the Prophets, Q (Marchalianus, Rome, 6th century) is valuable, both for its text, which is “Hesychian” (see above), and for its abundant marginal Hexaplaric matter. A curious mixture of uncial and cursive writing occurs in E (Bodleianus, probably 10th century), fragments of the historical books (to 3 R 16 28) preserved at Oxford, Cambridge (1 leaf), Petersburg and London; Tischendorf, who brought the manuscript from the East, retained the tell-tale Cambridge leaf, on which the transition from uncial to cursive script occurs, until his death. The long-concealed fact that the scattered fragments were part of a single manuscript came to light through Swete's identification of the Cambridge leaf as a continuation of the Bodleian fragment. Many of the cursives still await investigation, as do also the lectionaries. The latter, though the manuscripts are mainly late, should repay study. The use of the Septuagint for lectionary purposes was inherited by the church from the synagogue, and the course of lessons may partly represent an old system; light may also be expected from them on the local distribution of various types of text.

3. Printed Texts:

Of the printed text the first four editions were (1) the Complutensian Polyglot of Cardinal Ximenes, 1514-17, comprising the Greek, Hebrew and Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) texts, the last in the middle place of honor being compared to Jesus in the midst between the two thieves (!). The Greek was based on manuscripts from the Vatican and one from Venice; it exhibits on the whole the Lucianic recension, as the Hesychian is by a curious coincidence represented in (2) the Aldine edition of 1518, based on Venetian manuscripts. (3) The monumental Sixtine edition, published at Rome in 1586 under the auspices of Pope Sixtus V and frequently reprinted, was mainly based on the codex Vaticanus, the superiority of which text is justly recognized in the interesting preface (printed in Swete's Intro). (4) The English edition (Oxford, 1707-20) begun by Grabe (died 1712) was based on the codex Alexandrinus, with aid from other manuscripts, and had the peculiarity that he employed Origen's critical signs and different sizes of type to show the divergence between the Greek and the Hebrew. Of more recent editions three are preeminent. (5) The great Oxford edition of Holmes and Parsons (Oxford, 1798-1827, 5 volumes, folio) was the first attempt to bring together in a gigantic apparatus criticus all the evidence of uncial and cursire manuscripts (upward of 300), versions and early Citations from Philo and Josephus onward. As a monumental storehouse of materials “H. and P.” will not be wholly superseded by the latest edition now (1913) in preparation. (6) The serviceable Cambridge “manual,” edition of Swete (lst edition 1887-94, edition 3, 1901-7, 3 volumes, 8vo), is in the hands of all serious Septuagint students. The text is that of B, or (where B fails) of A, and the apparatus contains the readings of the principal uncial manuscripts. New materials discovered since the edition of H. and P., especially codex S, are employed, and greater accuracy in the presentation of the other evidence has been made possible by photography. The fact that the text here printed is but a provisional one is sometimes overlooked. Swete's edition was designed as a precursor to (7) the larger Cambridge Septuagint, of which three installments embracing the Pentateuch have (1913) appeared (The Old Testament in Greek, edition A.E. Brooke and N. McLean, Cambridge, 1911 pt. III. Numbers and Deuteronomy). The text is a reprint of Swete's except that from Ex onward a few alterations of errors in the primary manuscript have been corrected, a delicate task in which the editors have rejected a few old readings without sufficient regard to the peculiarities of Hellenistic Greek. The importance of the work lies in its apparatus, which presents the readings of all the uncials, versions and early citations, and those of a careful representative selection of the cursives. The materials of H (Law of Holiness, Lev. 17 through 26) and P (the Priestly Code) are brought up to date and presented in a more reliable and convenient form. Besides these there is (8) Lagarde's reconstruction of the Lucianic recension of the historical books, which, as stated, must be used with caution (see above)

4. Reconstruction of Original Text:

The task of reconstructing the Oldest text is still unaccomplished. Materials have accumulated, and much preliminary “spade-work” has been done, by Lagarde in particular (see his “axioms” in Swete, Introduction, 484, ff) and more recently by Nestle and Rahlfs; but the principles which the editor must follow are not yet finally determined. The extent to which “mixture” has affected the documents is the stumbling-block. Clearly no single Moabite Stone presents the oldest text. That of codex B, as in the New Testament, is on the whole the purest. In the 4 books of “Reigns” (1 Samuel through 2 Kings), e.g., it has escaped the grosser interpolations found in most manuscripts, and Rahlfs (Sept.-Studien, I, 1904) regards its text as pre-Origenic. It is, however, of unequal value and by no means an infallible guide; in Judges, e.g., its text is undoubtedly late, no earlier than the 4th century AD, according to one authority (Moore,” Jgs,” ICC). In relation to two of the 4th-century recensions its text is neutral, neither predominantly Lucianic nor Hexaplaric; but it has been regarded by some authorities as Hesychian. Possibly the recension made in the country which produced the Septuagint adhered more closely than others to the primitive text; some “Hesychian” features in the B text may prove to be original. Still even its purest portions contain marks of editorial revision and patent corruptions. Codex Alexandrinus presents a quite different type of text, approximating to that of the Massoretic Text. In the books of “Reigns” it is practically a Hexaplaric text without the critical signs, the additional matter being mainly derived from Aquila. Yet that it contains an ancient element is shown by the large support given to its readings by the New Testament and early Christian writers. Individual manuscripts must give place to groups. In order to reconstruct the texts current before Origen's time, it is necessary to isolate the groups containing the three 4th-century recensions, and to eliminate from the recensions thus recovered all Hexaplaric matter and such changes as appear to have been introduced by the authors of those recensions. Other groups brought to light by the larger Cambridge text have also to be taken into account. The attempt to Renetrate into the earlier stages of the history is the hardest task. The Old Latin version is here the surest guide; it has preserved readings which have disappeared from all Greek manuscripts, and affords a criterion as to the relative antiquity of the Greek variants. The evidence of early Christian and Jewish citations is also valuable. Ultimately, after elimination of all readings proved to be “recensional” or late, the decision between outstanding variants must depend on internal evidence. These variants will fall into two classes: (1) those merely affecting the Greek text, by far the larger number and presenting less difficulty; (2) those which imply a different Hebrew text. In adjudicating on the latter Lagarde's main axioms have to be borne in mind, that a free translation is to be preferred to a slavishly literal one, and a translation presupposing another Hebrew original to one based on the Massoretic Text.

VII. Number, Titles and Order of Books.

1. Contents:

In addition to the Hebrew canonical books, the Septuagint includes all the books in the English Apocrypha except 2 Esdras (The Prayer of Manasseh only finds a place among the canticles appended in some manuscripts to the Psalms) besides a 3rd and 4th book of Maccabees. Swete further includes in his text as an appendix of Greek books on the borderland of canonicity the Ps of Sol (found in some cursives and mentioned in the list in codex A), the Greek fragments of the Book of Enoch and the ecclesiastical canticles above mentioned. Early Christian writers in quoting freely from these additional books as Scripture doubtless perpetuate a tradition inherited from the Jews of Alexandria. Most of the books being original Greek compositions were ipso facto excluded from a place in the Hebrew Canon. Greater latitude as regards canonicity prevailed at Alexandria; the Pentateuch occupied a place apart, but as regards later books no very sharp line of demarcation between “canonical” and “uncanonical” appears to have been drawn.

2. Titles:

Palestinian Jews employed the first word or words of each book of the Pentateuch to serve as its title; Genesis e.g. was denoted “in the beginning,” Exodus “(and these are the) names”; a few of the later books have similar titles. It is to the Septuagint, through the medium of the Latin VSS, that we owe the familiar descriptive titles, mostly suggested by phrases in the Greek version. In some books there are traces of rival titles in the Ptolemaic age. Exodus (“outgoing”) is also called Exagōgḗ (“leading out”) by Philo and by the Hellenist Ezekiel who gave that name to his drama on the deliverance from Egypt. Philo has also alternative names for Deuteronomy - Epinomís (“after-law”) borrowed from the title of a pseudo-Platonic treatise, and for Judgess “the Book of Judgments.” The last title resembles the Alexandrian name for the books of Samuel and Kings, namely, the four Books of Kingdoms or rather Reigns; the name may have been given in the first place to a partial version including only the reigns of the first few monarchs. Jerome's influence in this case restored the old Hebrew names as also in Chronicles (= Hebrew “Words of Days,” “Diaries”), which in the Septuagint is entitled Paraleipomena, “omissions,” as being a supplement to the Books of Reigns.

3. Bipartition of Books:

Another innovation, due apparently to the Greek translators or later editors, was the breaking up of some of the long historical narratives into volumes of more manageable compass. In the Hebrew manuscripts, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah form respectively one book apiece. In the Septuagint the first three of these collections are subdivided into two volumes as in modern Bibles; an acquaintance with the other arrangement is, however, indicated in Codex B by the insertion at the end of 1 R, 3 R, 1 Chronicles of the first sentence of the succeeding book, a reminder to the reader that a continuation is to follow. Ezra-Nehemiah, the Greek version (2 Esdras) being made under the influence of Palestinian tradition, remains undivided. Originally Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah formed a unit, as was apparently still the case when the oldest Greek version (1 Esdras) was made.

4. Grouping and Order of Books:

In the arrangement of books there is a radical departure from Palestinian practice. There were three main unalterable divisions in the Hebrew Bible, representing three stages in the formation of the Canon: Law, Prohets “Former” i.e. Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, and “Latter”) and “Writings.” This arrangement was known at Alexandria at the end of the 2nd century BC (Sir, prol.) but was not followed. The “Writings” were a miscellaneous collection of history and poetry with one prophetical book (Daniel). Alexandrian scholars introduced a more literary and symmetrical system, bringing together the books of each class and arranging them with some regard to the supposed chronological order of their authors. The Law, long before the Greek translation, had secured a position of supreme sanctity; this group was left undisturbed, it kept its precedence and the individual books their order (Leviticus and Numbers, however, exchange places in a few lists). The other two groups are broken up. Ruth is removed from the “Writings” and attached to Judges. Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah are similarly transferred to the end of the historical group. This group, from chronological considerations, is followed by the poetical and other “Writings,” the Prophets coming last (so in Codex Vaticanus, etc.; in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus, prophets precede poets). The internal order of the Greek Hagiographa, which includes quasi-historical (Esther, Tobit, Judith) and Wisdom books, is variable. Daniel now first finds a place among the Prophets. The 12 minor prophets usually precede the major (Codex Sinaiticus and Western authorities give the four precedence), and the order of the first half of their company is shuffled, apparently on chronological grounds, Hosea being followed by Amos, Micah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Jeremiah has his train of satellites, Baruch, Lamentation (transferred from the “Writings”) and Epistle of Jeremiah; Susanna and Bel and the Dragon consort with and form integral parts of Daniel. Variation in the order of books is partly attributable to the practice of writing each book on a separate papyrus roll, kept in a cylindrical case; rolls containing kindred matter would tend to be placed in the same case, but there would be no fixed order for these separate items until the copying of large groups in book-form came into vogue (Swete, Introduction, 225 f, 229 f).

VIII. Characteristics of the Version and Its Component Parts.

Notwithstanding the uncertain state of the text, some general characteristics of the version are patent. It is clear that, like the Hebrew itself, it is not a single book, but a library. It is a series of versions and Greek compositions covering well-nigh 400 years, since it includes a few productions of the 2nd century AD; the bulk of the translations, however, fall within the first half of the period (Sirach, prolegomena).

1. Grouping of Septuagint Books on Internal Evidence:

The translations may be grouped and their chronological order approximately determined from certain characteristics of their style. (1) We may inquire how a Hebrew word or phrase is rendered in different parts of the work. Diversity of renderings is not an infallible proof that different hands have been employed, since invariable uniformity in translation is difficult of attainment and indeed was not the aim of the Pentateuch translators, who seem rather to have studied variety of expression. If, however, a Hebrew word is consistently rendered by one Greek word in one portion and by another elsewhere, and if each of the two portions has other features peculiar to itself, it becomes highly probable that the two portions are the work of different schools. Among “test-words” which yield results of this kind are “servant” in “Moses the servant of the Lord,” “Hosts” in “Lord of Hosts,” “Philistines” (Swete, Introduction, 317 f; Thackeray, Grammar of the Old Testament, 7 ff). (2) We may compare the Greek with that of dated documents of the Ptolemaic age. The translations were written in the koinḗ or “common” Greek, most of them in the vernacular variety of it, during a period when this new cosmopolitan language was in the making; the abundant dated papyri enable us to trace some stages in its evolution. The Petrie and Hibeh papyri of the 3rd century BC afford the closest parallels to the Greek Pentateuch. The following century witnessed a considerable development or “degeneracy” in the language, of which traces may be found in the Greek of the prophetical books. Beside the vernacular Greek was the literary language of the “Atticistic” school which persistently struggled, with indifferent success, to recover the literary flavor of the old Greek masterpieces. This style is represented in the Septuagint by most of the original Greek writings and by the paraphrases of some of the “Writings.” (3) We may compare the Greek books as translations, noting in which books Iicense is allowed and which adhere strictly to the Hebrew. The general movement is in the direction of greater literalism; the later books show an increasing reverence for the letter of Scripture, resulting in the production of pedantically literal VSS; the tendency culminated in the 2nd century AD in the barbarisms of Aquila. Some of the “Writings” were freely handled, because they had not yet obtained canonical rank at the time of translation. Investigation on these lines goes to show that the order of the translation was approximately that of the Hebrew Canon. The Greek Hexateuch may be placed in the 3rd century BC, the Prophets mainly in the 2nd century BC, the “Writings” mainly in the 2nd and 1st centuries BC.

(1) The Hexateuch.

The Greek Pentateuch should undoubtedly be regarded as a unit: the Aristeas story may so far be credited. It is distinguished by a uniformly high level of the “common” vernacular style, combined with faithfulness to the Hebrew, rarely lapsing into literalism. It set the standard which later translators tried to imitate. The text was more securely established in this portion and substantial variant readings are comparatively few. The latter part of Exodus is an exception; the Hebrew had here not reached its final form in the 3rd century BC, and there is some reason for thinking that the version is not the work of the translator of the first half. In Deuteronomy a few new features in vocabulary appear (e.g. ekklēsía; see Hort, Christian Ecclesia, 4 ff). The Greek version of Josephus forms a link between the Pentateuch and the later historical books. The text was not yet fixed, and variants are more abundant than in the Pentateuch. The earliest VS, probably of selections only, appears from certain common features to have been nearly coeval with that of the Law.

(2) The “Latter” Prophets.

There is little doubt that the next books to be translated were the Prophets in the narrower sense, and that Isaiah came first. The style of the Greek Isaiah has a close similarity, not wholly attributable to imitation, to that of the Pentateuch: a certain freedom of treatment connects it with the earlier translation period: it was known to the author of Wisdom (Isa_3:10 with Ottley's note). The translation shows “obvious signs of incompetence” (Swete), but the task was an exacting one. The local Egyptian coloring in the translation is interesting (R. R. Ottley, Book of Isaiah according to the Septuagint, 2 volumes, Greek text of A, translation and notes, Cambridge, 1904-6, with review in JTS, X, 299). Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the Minor Prophets were probably translated en bloc or nearly so. The Palestinian Canon had now been enlarged by a second group of Scriptures and this stimulated a desire among Alexandrian Jews to possess the entire collection of the Prophets in Greek. The undertaking seems to have been a formal and quasi-official one, not a haphazard growth. For it has been ascertained that Jeremiah and Ezekiel were divided for translation purposes into two nearly equal parts; a change in the Greek style occurs at the junctures. In Jeremiah the break occurs in chapter 29 Septuagint order); the clearest criterion of the two styles is the twofold rendering of “Thus saith the Lord.” The last chapter (Jer 52) is probably a later addition in the Greek. The translator of the second half of Jer also translated the first half of Baruch (1:1-3:8); he was incompetent and his work, if our text may be relied on, affords flagrant examples of Greek words being selected to render words which he did not understand merely because of their similar sound. Ezekiel is similarly divided, but here the translator of the first half (chapters 1 through 27) undertook the difficult last quarter as well (chapters 40 through 48), the remainder being left to a second worker. An outstanding test is afforded by the renderings of the refrain, “They shall know that I am the Lord.” The Greek version of “the twelve” shows no trace of a similar division; in its style it is closely akin to the first half of Ezekiel and is perhaps by the same hand (JTS, IV, 245, 398, 578). But this official version of the Prophets had probably been preceded by versions of short passages selected to be read on the festivals in the synagogues. Lectionary requirements occasioned the earliest versions of the Prophets, possibly of the Pentateuch as well. Two indications of this have been traced. There exists in four manuscripts a Greek version of the Psalm of Habakkuk (Hab 3), a chapter which has been a Jewish lesson for Pentecost from the earliest times, independent of and apparently older than the Septuagint and made for synagogue use. Similarly in Ezekiel of the Septuagint there is a section of sixteen verses (Eze_36:24-38) with a style quite distinct from that of its context. This passage was also an early Christian lesson for Pentecost, and its lectionary use was inherited from Judaism. Here the Septuagint translators seem to have incorporated the older version, whereas in Hab 3 they rejected it (JTS, XII, 191; IV, 407).

(3) Partial Version of the “Former” Prophets.

The Greek style indicates that the history of the monarchy was not all translated at once. Ulfilas is said to have omitted these books from the Gothic version as likely to inflame the military temper of his race; for another reason the Greek translators were at first content with a partial version. They omitted as unedifying the more disastrous portions, David's sin with the subsequent calamities of his reign and the later history of the divided monarchy culminating in the captivity. Probably the earliest versions embraced only (1) 1 R, (2) 2 R 1 1 through 11 1 (David's early reign), (3) 3 R 2 12 through 21 13 (Solomon and the beginning of the divided monarchy); the third book of “Reigns” opened with the accession of Solomon (as in Lucian's text), not at the point where 1 Kings opens. These earlier portions are written in a freer style than the rest of the Greek “Reigns,” and the Hebrew original differed widely in places from that translated in the English Bible (JTS, VIII, 262).

(4) The “Writings.”

The Hagiographa at the end of the 2nd century BC were regarded as national literature. (Sirach, prolegomena “the other books of our fathers”), but not as canonical. The translators did not scruple to treat these with great freedom, undeterred by the prohibition against alteration of Scripture (Deu_4:2; Deu_12:32). Free paraphrases of extracts were produced, sometimes with legendary additions. A partial version of Job (one-sixth being omitted) was among the first; Aristeas, the historian of the 2nd century BC, seems to have been acquainted with it (Freudenthal, Hellenistische Studien, 1875, 136 ff). The translator was a student of the Greek poets; his version was probably produced for the general reader, not for the synagogues. Hatch's theory (Essays in Biblical Greek, 1889, 214) that his Hebrew text was shorter than ours and was expanded later is untenable; avoidance of anthropomorphisms explains some omissions, the reason for others is obscure. The first Greek narrative of the return from exile (1 Esdras) was probably a similar version of extracts only from Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah, grouped round a fable of non-Jewish origin, the story of the 3 youths at the court of Darius. The work is a fragment, the end being lost, and it has been contended by some critics that the version once embraced the whole of Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah (C. C. Torrey, Ezra Studies, Chicago, 1910). The Greek is obviously earlier than Esdras B and is of great value for the reconstruction of the Hebrew. The same translator appears from peculiarities of diction to have produced the earliest version of Dnl, treating it with similar freedom and incorporating extraneous matter (the Song of Three Children, Susanna, Bel). The maximum of interpolation is reached in Esther, where the Greek additions make up two-thirds of the story. The Greek Proverbs (probably 1st century BC) includes many maxims not in the Hebrew; some of these appear to be derived from a lost Hebrew collection, others are of purely Greek origin. This translator also knew and imitated the Greek classics; the numerous fragments of iambic and hexameter verse in the translation cannot be accidental (JTS, XIII, 46). The Psalter is the one translation in this category in which liberties have not been taken; in Psa_13:1-6 (14):3 the extracts from other parts of Psalms and from Isaiah included in the B text must be an interpolation possibly made before Paul's time (Rom_3:13 ff), or else taken from Romans. The little Ps 151 in Septuagint, described in the title as an “autograph” work of David and as “outside the number,” is clearly a late Greek production, perhaps an appendix added after the version was complete.

(5) The Latest Septuagint Translations.

The latest versions included in the Septuagint are the productions of the Jewish translators of the 2nd century AD; some books may be rather earlier, the work of pioneers in the new school which advocated strict adherence to the Hebrew. The books of “Reigns” were now completed, by Theodotion, perhaps, or by one of his school; the later portions (2 R 11 2 through 3 R 2 11, David's downfall, and 3 R 22-4 R end, the downfall of the monarchy) are by one hand, as shown by peculiarities in style, e.g. “I am have with child” (2 R 11 5) = “I am with child,” a use which is due to desire to distinguish the longer form of the pronoun 'ānōkhī (“I,” also used for “I am”) from the shorter 'ănī. A complete version of Jdg was now probably first made. In two cases the old paraphrastic versions were replaced. Theodotion's Daniel, as above stated, superseded in the Christian church the older version A new and complete version of Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah was made (Esdras B), though the older version retained its place in the Greek Bible on account of the interesting legend imbedded in it; the new version is here again possibly the work of Theodotion; the numerous transliterations are characteristic of him (Torrey, Ezra Studies; theory had previously been advanced by Sir H. Howorth). In the Greek Ecclesiastes we have a specimen of Aquila's style (see McNeile's edition, Cambridge, 1904). Canticles is another late version

2. General Characteristics:

A marked feature of the whole translation is the scrupulous avoidance of anthropomorphisms and phrases derogatory to the divine transcendence. Thus Exo_4:16, “Thou shalt be to him in things pertaining to God” (Hebrew “for” or “as God”); Exo_15:3, “The Lord is a breaker of battles” (Hebrew “a Man of war”); Exo_24:10, “They saw the place where the God of Israel stood” (Hebrew “they saw the God of Israel”); Exo_24:11, “Of the elect of Israel not one perished and they were seen in the place of God” (Hebrew “Upon the nobles ... He laid not His hand, and they beheld God”). The comparison of God to a rock was consistently paraphrased as idolatrous, as was sometimes the comparison to the sun from fear of sun-worship (Ps 83 (84):12, “The Lord loves mercy and truth” for Hebrew “The Lord is a sun and shield”). “The sons of God” (Gen_6:2) becomes “the angels of God.” For minor liberties, e.g. slight amplifications, interpretation of difficult words, substitution of Greek for Hebrew coinage, translation of place-names, see Swete, Introduction, 323 ff. Blunders in translation are not uncommon, but the difficulties which these pioneers had to face must be remembered, especially the paleographical character of the Hebrew originals. These were written on flimsy papyrus rolls, in a script probably in a transitional stage between the archaic and the later square characters; the words were not separated, and there were no vowel-points; two of the radicals (wāw and yōdh) were also frequently omitted. Add to this the absence at Alexandria, for parts at least of the Scriptures, of any sound tradition as to the meaning. On the other hand the vocalization adopted by the translators, e.g. in the proper names, is of great value in the history of early Semitic pronunciation. It must further be remembered that the Semitic language most familiar to them was not Hebrew but Aramaic, and some mistakes are due to Aramaic or even Arabic colloquialisms (Swete, Introduction, 319).

IX. Salient Differences Between Greek and Hebrew Texts.

Differences indicating a Hebrew original other than the Massoretic Text affect either the sequence or the subject-matter (compare Swete, Introduction, 231 ff).

1. Sequence:

The most extensive discrepancies in arrangement of materials occur in (1) Ex 35 through 39, the construction of the Tabernacle and the ornaments of its ministers, (2) 3 R 4 through 11, Solomon's reign, (3) Jeremiah (last half), (4) Proverbs (end). (1) In Exodus the Septuagint gives precedence to the priests' ornaments, which in the Hebrew follow the account of the Tabernacle, and omits altogether the altar of incense. The whole section describing the execution of the instructions given in the previous chapters in almost identical words is one of the latest portions of the Pentateuch and the text had clearly not been finally fixed in the 3rd century BC; the section was perhaps absent from the oldest Greek version In Exo_20:13-15 Codex B arranges three of the commandments in the Alexandrian order (7, 8, 6), attested in Philo and in the New Testament. (2) Deliberate rearrangement has taken place in the history of Solomon, and the Septuagint unquestionably preserves the older text. The narrative of the building of the Temple, like that of the Tabernacle, contains some of the clearest examples of editorial revision in the Massoretic Text (Wellhausen, Hist of Israel, 67, 280, etc.). At the end of 3 R Septuagint places chapters 20 and 21 in their proper order; Massoretic Text reverses this, interposing the Naboth story in the connected account of the Syriac wars and justifying the change by a short preface. (3) In Jeremiah the chapter numbers differ from the middle of chapter 25 to the end of chapter 51, the historical appendix (chapter 52) concluding both texts. This is due to the different position assigned to a group of prophecies against the nations: Septuagint places them in the center, Massoretic Text at the end. The items in this group are also rearranged. The diversity in order is earlier than the Greek translation; see JTS, IV; 245. (4) The order of some groups of maxims at the end of Proverbs was not finally fixed at the time of the Greek translation; like Jeremiah's prophecies against the nations, these little groups seem to have circulated as late as the 2nd or 1st century BC as separate pamphlets. The Psalms numbers from 10 to 147 differ by one in Septuagint and Massoretic Text, owing to discrepancies in the lines of demarcation between individual psalms.

2. Subject Matter:

Excluding the end of Exodus, striking examples of divergence in the Pentateuch are few. Septuagint alone preserves Cain's words to his brother, “Let us go into the field” (Gen_4:8). The close of Moses' song appears in an expanded form in Septuagint (Deu_32:43). Similarly Hannah's song in 1 R 2 (? originally a warrior's triumph-song) has been rendered more appropriate to the occasion by the substitution in verse 8c of words about the answer to prayer, and enlarged by the insertion of a passage from Jeremiah; the changes in both songs may be connected with their early use as canticles. In Joshua the larger amount of divergence suggests that this book did not share the peculiar sanctity of the Law. But the books of “Reigns” present the widest differences and the fullest scope for the textual critic. The Septuagint here proves the existence of two independent accounts of certain events. Sometimes it incorporates both, while the Massoretic Text rejects one of them; thus Septuagint gives (3 R 2 35a ff, 46a ff) a connected summary of events in Solomon's personal history; most of which appear elsewhere in a detached form, 3 R 12 24a-z is a second account of the dismemberment of the kingdom; 16:28a-h a second summary of Jehoshaphat's reign (compare 22 41 ff); 4 R 1 18a another summary of Joram's reign (compare 3 1 ff). Conversely in 1 R 17 through 18, Massoretic Text has apparently preserved two contradictory accounts of events in David's early history, while Septuagint presents a shorter and consistent narrative (Swete, Intro, 245 f). An “addition” in Septuagint of the highest interest appears in 3 R 8 53b, where a stanza is put into the mouth of Solomon at the Temple dedication, taken from “the Song-book” (probably the Book of Jashar); the Massoretic Text gives the stanza in an edited form earlier in the chapter (8 12 f); for the reconstruction of the original Hebrew see JTS, X, 439; XI, 518. The last line proves to be a title, “For the Sabbath - On Alamoth” (i.e. for sopranos), showing that the song was set to music for liturgical purposes. In Jeremiah, besides transpositions, the two texts differ widely in the way of excess and defect; the verdict of critics is mainly in favor of the priority of the Septuagint (Streane, Double Text of Jeremiah, 1896). For divergences in the “Writings” see VIII, above; for additional titles to the Psalms see Swete, Introduction, 250 f.

Literature.

The most important works have been mentioned in the body of the article. See, further, the very full lists in Swete's Introduction and the bibliographies by Nestle in PRE³, III, 1-24, and XXIII, 207-10 (1913); HDB, IV, 453-54.