Help PreviousNext

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

TO


TOAH

to'-a.

See NAHATH .


TOB, THE LAND OF

tob, tob ('erets Tobh, "a good land"; ge Tob): Hither Jephthah escaped from his brethren after his father's death (Jdg 11:3), and perfected himself in the art of war, making forays with "the vain fellows" who joined him. Here the elders of Gilead found him, when, reduced to dire straits by the children of Ammon, they desired him to take command of their army (Jsg 11:5 ff). This country contributed 12,000 men to the forces of the allies, who with the Ammonites were defeated by Israel (2 Sam 10:8). In 1 Macc 5:13 we read of the land of Tubins where the Jews, about 1,000 men, were slain by the Gentiles, their wives and children being carried into captivity. The Tubieni, "men of Tobit" of 2 Macc 12:17, were probably from this place. Ptolemy (v.19) speaks of Thauba, a place to the Southwest of Zobah, which may possibly be Tobit. The Talmud (Neubauer, Geog. du Talmud, 239) identifies the land of Tobit with the district of Hippene. Tobit would then be represented by Hippos, modern Susiyeh, to the Southwest of Fiq on the plateau East of the Sea of Galilee. Perhaps the most likely identification is that supported by G. A. Smith (HGHL, 587), with eT-Taiyibeh, 10 miles South of Umm Qeis (Gadara). The name is the same in meaning as Tobit.

W. Ewing


TOB-ADONIJAH

tob-ad-o-ni'-ja, tob-(Tobh 'adhoniyah, "good is the Lord"; Codex Vaticanus Tobadobeia; Codex Alexandrinus and Lucian Tobadonia): One of the Levites sent by King Jehoshaphat to teach in the cities of Judah (2 Ch 17:8). The name looks like a dittography arising from the two previous names, Adonijah and Tobijah.


TOBIAH

to-bi'-a (Tobhiyah; Codex Alexandrinus Tobias; omitted in Codex Vaticanus):

(1) An Ammonite slave (King James Version, "servant"), probably of Sanballat, the governor of Samaria (Neh 2:10). He was grieved exceedingly when Nehemiah came to seek the welfare of the children of Israel. In two ways he was connected by marriage with the Jews, having himself married the daughter of Shecaniah, the son of Arab, and his son Jehohanan having married the daughter of Meshullam, the son of Berechiah (Neh 6:18). Because of this close connection with the Jews, the nobles of the latter corresponded by letter with him and also reported his good deeds to Nehemiah and reported Nehemiah's words to Tobiah. In consequence of the report, Tobiah sent letters to Nehemiah to put him in fear (6:17-19). Nehemiah seems to have considered him to be his chief enemy; for he put him before Sanballat in his prayers to God to remember his opponents according to their works (6:14). In 13:4 we are told that he was an ally of Eliashib, the high priest who had the oversight of the chambers of the house of God and had prepared for him as a guest chamber the room which had before been used as a storehouse for offerings of various kinds. Nehemiah, having heard during his second visit to Jerusalem of this desecration of the temple, cast out the household stuff of Tobiah and cleansed the chambers, restoring the vessels of God and the offerings as of old.

(2) The eponym of a family which returned with Zerubbabel, but could not trace its descent (Ezr 2:60; Neh 7:62).

R. Dick Wilson


TOBIAS

to-bi'-as:

(1) The son of Tobit.

See TOBIT ,BOOK OF .

(2) Tobias, Codex Alexandrinus Tobio the father (according to Josephus, grandfather) of HYRCANUS (which see) (2 Macc 3:11).


TOBIE

to'-bi.

See TUBIAS .


TOBIEL

to-bi'-el, to'-bi-el (Tobiel, Codex Alexandrinus Tobiel): The father of Tobit (Tobit 1:1); another form of "Tabeel]" "God is good."


TOBIJAH

to-bi'-ja (Tobhiyah, "Yahweh is good"):

(1) A Levite in the reign of Jehoshaphat whom the king sent to teach in the cities of Judah (2 Ch 17:8; Tobhiyahu; the Septuagint omits).

(2) One of a party of Jews that came from Babylon to Jerusalem with gold and silver for a crown for Zerubbabel and Joshua, or for Zerubbabel alone (Zec 6:10,14). The crown was to be stored in the temple in remembrance of the donors (the Septuagint in both passages translates Tobiyah by chresimoi, i.e. Tobheyha).


TOBIT, BOOK OF

to'-bit:

1. Name

2. Canonicity

3. Contents

4. Fact or Fiction?

5. Some Sources

6. Date

7. Place of Composition

8. Versions

9. Original Language

LITERATURE

1. Name:

The book is called by the name of its principal hero which in Greek is Tobit, Tobeit and Codex N Tobeith. The original Hebrew word thus transliterated (Tobhiyah) means "Yahweh is good." The Greek name of the son is Tobias, a variant of the same Hebrew word. In the English, Welsh, etc., translations, the father and son are called Tobit and Tobias respectively, but in the Vulgate both are known by the same name--Tobias--the cause of much confusion. In Syriac the father is called Tobit, the son Tobiya, following apparently the Greek; the former is not a transliteration of the Hebrew form given above and assumes a different etymology, but what?

2. Canonicity:

Though this book is excluded from Protestant Bibles (with but few exceptions), Tobit 4:7-9 is read in the Anglican offertory, and at one time Tobias and Sarah occupied in the marriage service of the Anglican rubrics the position at present held by Abraham and Sarah. For the position of the book in the Septuagint, Vulgate and English Versions of the Bible, see JUDITH , 2.

3. Contents:

The Book of Tobit differs in essential matters in its various versions and even in different manuscripts of the same versions (compare the Septuagint). The analysis of the book which follows is based on the Septuagint's Codex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus, which English Versions of the Bible follow. The Vulgate differs in many respects.

The book tells of two Jewish families, living, one at Nineveh, the other at Ecbatana, both of which had fallen into great trouble, but at length recovered their fortunes and became united by the marriage of the son of one to the daughter of the other. Tobit had, with his brethren of the tribe of Naphtali, been taken captive by Enemessar (= Shalmaneser). remaining in exile under his two successors, Sennacherib and Sarchedonus (Esar-haddon). During his residence in the Northern Kingdom (Israel) and after his removal to Nineveh (Assyria), he continued faithful to the Jewish religion and supported the observances of that religion at Jerusalem. Moreover, he fasted regularly, gave alms freely. and buried such of his fellow-countrymen as had been put to death with the approval or by the command of the Assyrian king. Notwithstanding this loyalty to the religion of his fathers and the fact that he buried Jewish corpses intended to be

disgraced by exposure, he like other Jews (Daniel, etc.) won favor at court by his upright demeanor and was made steward of the king's estate. Under the next king (Sennacherib) all this was changed, for he not only lost his high office but was deprived of his wealth, and came perilously near to losing his life. Through an accident (bird dung falling into his eyes) he lost his sight, and, to make bad worse, his wife, in the manner of Job's, taunted him with the futility of his religious faith. Job-like he prayed that God might take him out of his distress.

Now it happened that at this time another Jewish family, equally loyal to the ancestral faith, had fallen into similar distress--Raguel, his wife Edna and his daughter Sarah, who resided at Ecbatana (Vulgate "Rages"; compare Tobit 1:14) in Media. Now Sarah was an only daughter, comely of person and virtuous of character. She had been married to seven successive husbands, but each one of them had been slain on the bridal night by the demon Asmodeus, who seems to have been eaten up with jealousy and wished no other to have the charming maid whom he loved. The parents of Tobias at Nineveh, like those of Sarah at Ecbatana, wished to see their only child married that they might have descendants, but the marriage must be in each case to one belonging to the chosen race (Tobit 3:7-15; but see 7, below). The crux of the story is the bringing together of Tobias and Sarah and the frustration of the jealous murders of Asmodeus. In the deep poverty to which he had been reduced Tobit bethought himself of the money (ten talents, i.e. about 3,500 British pounds) which he had deposited with one Gabael of Rages. The Septuagint's Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Vaticanus have Rhagoi) in Media (see Tobit 1:14). This he desired his son to fetch; but the journey is long and dangerous, and he must have a trustworthy guide which he finds in Raphael, an angel sent by God, but who appears in the guise of an orthodox Jew. The old man is delighted with the guide, whom, however, he first of all carefully examines, and dismisses his son with strict injunctions to observe the Law, to give alms and not to take to wife a non-Jewish (EV "strange") maiden (Tobit 4:3 ff). Proceeding on the journey they make a halt on reaching the Tigris, and during a bath in the river Tobias sees a fish that made as if it would devour him. The angel tells him to seize the fish and to extract from it and carefully keep its heart, liver and gall. Reaching Ecbatana they are hospitably lodged in the home of Raguel, and at once Tobias falls madly in love with the beautiful daughter Sarah, and desires to have her for wife. This is approved by the girl's parents and by Raphael, and the marriage takes place. Before going together for the night the angel instructs the bridegroom to burn the heart and liver of the fish he had caught in the Tigris. The smoke that resulted acted as a countercharm, for it drove away the evil spirit who nevermore returned (Tobit 8:1 ff). At the request of Tobias, Raphael leaves for Rages and brings from Gabael the ten talents left in his charge by Tobit. Tobias and his bride led by the angel now set out for Nineveh amid the prayers and blessings of Raguel and with half his wealth. They are warmly welcomed by the aged and anxious parents Tobit and Anna, and Tobias' dog which he took with him (Tobit 5:16) was so pleased upon getting back to the old home that, according to the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) rendering, he "ran on before as if bringing the news .... , showing his joy by fawning and by wagging his tail" (Vulgate Tobit 11:9; compare English Versions of the Bible 11:4). Upon reaching his father, acting upon Raphael's directions, Tobias heals Tobit's demon-caused blindness by applying to the old man's eyes the gall of the fish, whereupon sight returns and the family's cup of happiness is full. The angel is offered a handsome fee for the services he has rendered, but, refusing all, he declares who he is and why he was sent by God, who deserves all the praise, he none. Tobit, having a presentiment of the coming doom of Nineveh, urges his son to leave the country and make his home in Media after the death of his parents. Tobias is commanded to write the events which had happened to him in a book (12:20). We then have Tobit's hymn of praise and thanksgiving and a record of his death at the age of 158 years (Tobit 13; 14). Tobias and Sarah, in accordance with Tobit's advice, leave for Ecabatana. His parents-in-law follow his parents into the other world, and at the age of 127 he himself dies, though not before hearing of the destruction of Nineveh by Nebuchadnezzar (14:13-15).

4. Fact or Fiction?:

Luther seems to have been the first to call in question the literal historicity of this book, regarding it rather in the light of a didactic romance. The large number of details pervading the book, personal, local and chronological, give it the appearance of being throughout a historical record; but this is but part of the author's article. His aim is to interest, instruct and encourage his readers, who were apparently in exile and had fallen upon evil times. What the writer seeks to make clear is that if they are faithful to their religious duties, giving themselves to prayer and almsgiving, burying their dead instead of exposing them on the "Tower of Silence," as did the Persians, then God would be faithful to them as He had been to Tobit.

That the book was designed to be a book of religious instruction and not a history appears from the following considerations: (1) There are historical and geographical inaccuracies in the book. It was not Shalmaneser (Enemessar) who made the tribes of Naphtali and Zebulun exiles in Assyria, but Tiglath-pileser (734); see 2 Ki 15:29. Sennacherib was not the son of Shalmaneser (Tobit 1:15), but of Sargon the Usurper. Moreover, the Tigris does not lie on the way from Nineveh to Ecbatana, as Tobit 6 f imply.

(2) The prominence given to certain Jewish principles and practices makes it clear that the book was written on their account. See Tobit 1:3 ff, Tobit's integrity, his support of the Jerusalem sanctuary, his almsgiving, etc.: (a) he buries the dead bodies of Jews; (b) he and his wife pray; (c) he teaches Tobias to keep the Law, give alms, etc. Note in particular the teaching of Raphael the angel (Tobit 12:6 ff) and that contained in Tobit's song of praise (Tobit 13).

(3) The writer has borrowed largely from other sources, Biblical and non-Biblical, and he shows no regard for correctness of facts so long as he succeeds in making the teaching clear and the tale interesting. The legend about the angel who pretended to be an orthodox Jew with a proper Jewish name and pedigree was taken from popular tradition and could hardly have been accepted by the writer as literally true.

For oral and written sources used by the author of Tobit see the next section. A writer whose aim was to give an exact account of things which happened would hardly have gone to so many sources belonging to such different times, nor would he bring into one life events which in the sources belong to many lives (Job, etc.).

5. Some Sources:

The Book of Tobit is dependent upon older sources, oral or written, more than is the case with most books in the Apocrypha. The following is a brief statement of some of these:

(1) The Book of Job.

Besides belonging to the same general class of literature as Job, such as deals with the problem of suffering, Tobit presents us with a man in whose career there are alternations of prosperity and adversity similar to those that meet us in Job. When Anna reproaches her husband for continuing to believe in a religion which fails him at the critical moment (Tobit 2:14), we have probably to see a reflection of the similar incident in Job ("renounce God and die" (Job 2:9)).

(2) The Book of Sirach.

There are so many parallels between Sirach and Tobit that some kind of dependence seems quite clear. Take the following as typical: Both lay stress on the efficacy of alms-giving (Tobit 4:11; 12:9; compare Sirach 3:30; 29:12; 40:24). Both teach the same doctrine of Sheol as the abode of feelingless shades to which the good as well as the bad go (Tobit 3:6,10; 13:2, compare Sirach 46:19; 14:16; 17:28). The importance of interring the dead is insisted upon in both books (Tobit 1:17; 2:3,7; 4:3 f; compare Sirach 7:33; 30:18; 38:16). The same moral duties are emphasized: continued attention to God and the life He enjoins (Tobit 4:5 f,19; compare Sirach 6:37; 8:8-14; 35:10; 37:2); chastity and the duty of marrying within one's own people (Tobit 4:12 f; 8:6; compare Sirach 7:26; 36:24); proper treatment of servants (Tobit 4:14; compare Sirach 7:20 f); the sin of covetousness (Tobit 5:18 f; compare Sirach 5); see more fully Speaker's Apocrypha, I, 161 f.

(3) The Achiqar Legend.

We now know that the story of Ahikar referred to in Tobit 14:10 existed in many forms and among many ancient nations. The substance of the legend is briefly that Achiqar was prime minister in Assyria under Sennacherib. Being childless he adopted a boy Nadan (called "Aman" in 14:10) and spared no expense or pains to establish him well in life. Upon growing up the young man turns out badly and squanders, not only his own money, but that of Achiqar. When rebuked and punished by the latter, he intrigues against his adoptive father and by false letters persuades the king that his minister is a traitor. Achiqar is condemned to death, but the executioner saves the fallen minister's life and conceals him in a cellar below his (Achiqar's) house. In a great crisis which unexpectedly arises the king expresses the wish that he had still with him his old and (as he thought) now executed minister. He is delighted to find after all that he is alive, and he loses no time in restoring him to his lost position, handing over to him Nadan for such punishment as he thinks fit.

There can be no doubt that the "Achiacharus" of Tobit (Achiacharos, 1:21 f; 2:10; 11:18; 14:10), a nephew of Tobit, is the Achiqar of the above story. George Hoffmann of Kiel (Auszuge aus syrischen Akten persiacher Martyrer) was the first to connect the Achiqar legend with the Achiacharus of Tobit, though he believed that the story arose in the Middle Ages under the influence of Tobit. Modern scholars, however, agree that the story is of heathen origin and of older date than Tobit. Rendel Harris published a Syriac version of this legend together with an Introduction and translation (Cambridge Press, 1898), but more important are the references to this tale in the papyri found at Elephantine and recently published by Eduard Sachau, Aramaic Papyrus und Ostraka, (1911, 147 ff). This last proves that the tale is as old as 400 BC at least. For lull bibliography on the subject (up to 1909) see Schurer,GJV 4,III , 256 ff. See also The Story of Achiqar from the Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Greek, Slavonic versions by Conybeare, J. Rendel Harris and A. S. Lewis, 1898, and in particular Histoire et Sagesse d'Achiqar, paragraph Francois Nace, 1909.

(4) The Book of Esther:

The occurrence in Tobit 14:10 of "Aman" for "Nadan" may show dependence upon Esther, in which book Haman, prime minister and favorite of Ahasuerus (Xerxes, 485-464 BC) exhibits treachery comparable with that of Nadan. But Esther seems to the present writer to have been written after and not before Tobit (see Century Bible, "Esther," 299 ff). It is much more likely that a copyist substituted, perhaps unconsciously through mental association, the name Haman for that which stood originally in the text. Marshall (HDB, IV, 789) thinks that the author of Tobit was acquainted with the Book of Jubilees, but he really proves no more than that both have many resemblances. In its angelology and demonology the Book of Jubilees is much more developed and belongs to a later date (about 100 BC; see R.H. Charles, Book of Jubilees, lvi ff, lviii ff). But the two writings have naturally much in common because both were written to express the sentiments of strict Jews living in the 2nd century BC.

6. Date:

This book seems to reflect the Maccabean age, an age in which faithful Jews suffered for their religion. It is probable that Judith and Tobit owe their origin to the same set of circumstances, the persecutions of the Jews by the Syrian party. The book belongs therefore to about 160 BC. The evidence is external and internal.

(1) External.

(a) Tobit 14:4-9 implies the existence of the Book of Jonah and also the completion and recognition of the prophetic Canon (about 200 BC). (b) Since Sirach is used as a source, that book must have been written, i.e. Tobit belongs to a later date than say 180 BC. (c) The Christian Father Polycarp in 112 AD quotes from Tobit, but there is no earlier allusion to the book. The external evidence proves no more than that Tobit must have been written after 180 BC and before 112 AD.

(2) Internal.

(a) Tobit 14:5 f seems to show that Jonah was written while the temple of Zerubbabel was in existence, but before this structure had been replaced by the gorgeous temple erected under Herod the Great: i.e. Tobit was written before 25 BC. (b) The stress laid upon the burial of the dead suits well the period of the Syrian persecution, when we know Antiochus Epiphanes allowed Jewish corpses to lie about unburied. (c) We have in Tobit and Judith the same zeal for the Jewish Law and its observance which in a special degree marked the Maccabean age. Noldeke and Lohr (Kautzsch, Apok. des Altes Testament, 136) argue for a date about 175 BC, on the ground that in Tobit there is an absence of that fervent zeal for Judaism and that hatred of men and things non-Jewish which one finds in books written during the Maccabean wars. But we know for certain that when the Maccabean enthusiasm was at its height there existed all degrees of fervor among the Jews, and it would be a strange thing if all the literature of the time represented but one phase of the national life.

7. Place of Composition:

We have no means of ascertaining who wrote this book, for the ascription of the authorship to Tobit (1:1 ff) is but a literary device. There are, however, data which help in fixing the nationality of the writer and the country in which he lived. That the author was a Jew is admitted by all, for no other than a Jew could have shown such a deep interest in Jewish things and in the fortunes of the Jewish nation. Moreover, the fact that Tobit, though member of the Northern Kingdom, is represented as worshipping at the Jerusalem temple and observing the feasts there (1:4-7) makes it probable that the author was a member of the Southern Kingdom wishing to glorify the religion of his country.

That he did not live in Palestine is suggested by several considerations: (1) The book describes the varying fortunes of Jews in exile so completely and with such keen sympathy as to suggest that the writer was himself one of them. (2) The affectionate language in which he refers to Jerusalem and its religious associations (Tobit 1:4 ff) is such as a member of the Diaspora would use. (3) The author nowhere reveals a close personal knowledge of Palestine. That Tobit, the ostensible author (1:1), should be set forth as a native of Galilee (1:1 f) is due to the art of the writer.

Assuming that the book was written in a foreign land, opinions differ as to which. The evidence seems to favor either Persia or Egypt. In favor of Persia is the Persian background of the book. Asmodeus (Tobit 3:8,17) is the Pets Aesma daeva. The duty of burying the dead is suggested to the Jewish writer by the Persian (Zoroastrian) habit of exposing dead bodies on the "Tower of Silence" to be eaten by birds. Consanguineous marriages are forbidden in the Pentateuch (see Lev 18:6 ff); but they are favored by Tobit 1:9; 3:15; 4:12; 7:4. The latter seems to show that Tobias and Sarah whom he married were first cousins. Marriages between relatives were common among the Iranians and were defended by the magicians as a religious duty. One may say it was allowed in the particular case in question on account of the special circumstances, the fewness of Jews in the parts where the families of Tobit and Raguel lived; compare Nu 36:4 ff for another special case. The fact that a dog is made to accompany Tobias on his journey to Ecbatana (Tobit 5:17; 11:4) favors a Persian origin, but is so repugnant to Semitic ideas that it is omitted from the Hebrew versions of this story (see DOG ). For an elaborate defense of a Persian origin of Tobit see J. H. Moulton, The Expository Times, XI, 157 ff; compare H. Maldwyn Hughes, The Ethics of Jewish Apocryphal Literature, 42 ff. The evidence is not decisive; for a knowledge of Iranian modes of thought and expression may be possessed by persons living far away from Iranian territory. And at some points Tobit teaches things contrary to Zoroastrianism. Noldeke and Lohr hold that the book was composed in Egypt, referring to the facts that the demon Asmodeus on being overcome flees to Egypt (8:3) and that there were Jews in Egypt who remained loyal to their ancestral faith and were nevertheless promoted to high places in the state. The knowledge of Mesopotamia shown by the author is so defective (see 4, above) that a Mesopotamian origin for the book cannot be conceived of.

8. Versions:

Tobit exists in an unusually large number of manuscripts and versions showing that the book was widely read and regarded as important. But what is peculiar in the case of this book is that its contents differ largely--and not seldom in quite essential matters--in the various manuscripts, texts and translations (see 3. above).

Tobit has come down to us in the following languages:

(1) Greek.

Manuscripts of the Greek text belong to three classes: (a) that found in the uncials Codex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus, BA, (which are almost identical) and most Greek manuscripts; our English and other modern translations are made from this; (b) that of Codex Sinaiticus which deviates from (a) often in important matters. The old Latin tallies with this very closely; (c) that of Codices 44, 106 and 107 (adopting the numbers of Holmes and Parsons), which largely coincides with (b). From 7:10 onward this text forms the basis of the Syriac (Peshitta) version Opinions differ as to which of these three Greek texts is the oldest. Fritzsche, Noldeke and Grimm defend the priority of BA. In favor of this are the following: This text exists in the largest number of manuscripts and translations; it is most frequently quoted by the Fathers and other early writers; it is less diffuse and more spontaneous, showing less editorial manipulation. Ewald, Reusch, Schurer, Nestle and J. Rendel Harris hold that [?] represents the oldest Greek text. Schurer (GJV4,III, 243) gives the principal arguments for this view (compare Fuller, Speaker's Commentary, I, 168 f) is much fuller thanBA . Condensation (compare BA ) is much more likely, Fuller and Schurer say, than expansion (Codex Sinaiticus); but this is questioned. In some cases, Codex Sinaiticus preserves an admittedly better text, which is of course true often of the Septuagint and even the minor versions as against the Massoretic Text.

(2) Latin.

(i) The Old Latin based on Codex Sinaiticus found in (i) the editions published in 1751 by Sabbathier (Bib. Sac. Latin versions Antiq.); (ii) in the Book of Tobit (A. Neubauer, 1878). This text exists in at least three recensions. (b) The Vulgate, which simply reproduces Jerome's careless translation made in a single night; see (3). In Judith and Tobit, the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) is in every respect identical with its translation made by Jerome.

(3) Aramaic (a Term Which Strictly Embraces Syriac).

(a) That from which Jerome's Jewish help made the Hebrew that formed the basis of Jerome's Latin version. We have no copy of this (see next section). (b) That published by Neubauer (Book of Tobit, a Chaldee Text) which was found by him imbedded in a Jewish Midrash of the 15th century. Neubauer was convinced and tried to prove that this is the version which Jerome's teacher put into Hebrew and which therefore formed the basis of Jerome's own version In favor of this is the fact that in Tobit 1 through 36, and therefore throughout the book, Tobit is spoken of in the third person alike in this Aramaic (Chaldee) version and in Jerome's Latin translation; whereas in all the other versions (compare chapters 1 through 36) Tobit speaks in the first person ("I," etc.). But the divergences between this Aramaic and Jerome's Latin versions are numerous and important, and Neubauer's explanations are inadequate (op. cit., vi ff). Besides, Dalman (Grammatik des jud.-palest. Aramaic, 1894, 27-29) proves from the language that this version belongs to the 7th century AD or to a later time.

(4) Syriac.

The text of this version was first printed in the London Polyglot (Volume IV) and in a critically revised form in the Lib. Apocrypha. Vet. Test. Syriac of Lagarde. This text consists of parts of two different versions. The Hexaplar text based on the usual manuscripts (Codex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus etc.) is used from Tobit 1:1 through 7:9. From 7:10 onward the text corresponds closely with the Greek, [?], and [?] especially in parts, with the manuscripts 44, 106, 107. See fully Schurer,GJV 4, 244 ff.

(5) Hebrew.

None of the Hebrew recensions are old. Two Hebrew texts of Tobit have been known since the 16th century, having been printed then and often afterward. Both are to be found in the London Polyglot. (a) That known as Hebraeus Munsteri (HM), from the fact that it was published at Basel in 1542 by Sebastian Munster, though it had also been printed in 1516 at Constantinople. (b) That known as Hebraeus Fagii (HF), on account of the fact that Paul Fagius published it in 1542. It had, however, been previously published, i.e. in Constantinople in 1517. HF introduces Biblical phraseology wherever possible. Since these are comparatively late translations they have but little critical value, and the same statement applies to the two following Hebrew translations discovered, edited and translated by Dr. M. Caster (see PSBA ,XVIII , 204 ff, 259 ff;XIX , 27 ff): (a)A Hebrew manuscript found in the British Museum and designated by himHL . This manuscript agrees with the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) and Aramaic at some points where the other authorities differ, and Dr. Gaster thinks it not unlikely that in HL we have a copy of the original text. He has not been followed by any scholar in this opinion. (ii) Dr. Gaster copied some years ago from a Hebrew Midrash, apparently no longer existing, a condensed Hebrew version (HG) of Tobit. Like HL it agrees often with the Vulgate and Aramaic against other versions and manuscripts.

(6) Ethiopic.

Dillmann has issued the ancient Ethiopic versions in his Biblia Veteris Testamenti Aethiopica, V, 1894.

9. Original Language:

The majority of modern scholars, who have a better knowledge of Sere than the older scholars, hold that the original text of Tobit was Semitic (Aramaic or Hebrew); so Ewald, Hilgenfeld, Graetz, Neubauer, Bickell, Fuller (Speaker's Apocrypha), Marshall (HDB). In favor of this are the following considerations: (1) The existence of an Aramaic text in Jerome's day (see (3), above). (2) The proper names in the book, male and female, have a Semitic character. (3) The style of the writer is Semitic rather than Aryan, many of the expressions making bad Greek, but when turned into Semitic yielding good Aramaic or Hebrew. See the arguments as set out by Fuller (Speaker's Apocrypha, I, 164 ff). Marshall (HDB, III, 788) gives his reasons for concluding that the original language was Aramaic, not Hebrew, in this opinion following Neubauer (op. cit.). Graetz (Monatsschrift far Geschichte und Wissenschaft der Juden, 1879, 386 ff) gives his grounds for deciding for a Hebrew original. That the book was written in Greek is the view upheld by Fritzsche, Noldeke, W.R. Smith, Schurer and Lbhr. The text of Codex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus says Lohr, contains Greek of the most idiomatic kind, and gives no suggestion of being a translation.

LITERATURE.

Much of the best literature has been cited in the course of the preceding article. See also "Literature" in articleAPOCRYPHA , for text, comms., etc., and the Bible Dicts., Encyclopedia Biblica (W. Erbt) and HDB (J. T. Marshall). Note in addition the following: K. D. Ilgen, Die Geschichte Tobias, nach den drei verschiedenen Originalen, Griechisch, Lateinisch u. Syriac., etc., 1800; Ewald, Gesch.3, IV, 269-74; Graetz, Gesch.2, IV, 466 ff; Noldeke, "Die Texte des Buchs Tobit," Monatsschrift der Berlin Acad., 1879, 45 ff; Bickell, "A Source of the Book of Tobit," Athenaeum, 1890, 700 ff; 1891, 123 ff; I. Abrahams, "Tobit's Dog," Jewish Quarterly Review, I, 3, 288 E. Cosquin, "Le livre de Tobie et l'histoire du sage Achiqar," Rev. Biblical Int., VIII, 1899, 50-82, 519-31, rejects R. Harris' views; Margarete Plath, "Zum Buch Tobit," Stud. und Krit., 1901, 377-414; I. Levi, "La langue originale de Tobit," Rev. Juive, XLIV, 1902, 288-91, Oxford Apocrypha, "Tobit" (full bibliography).

T. Witton Davies


TOCHEN

to'-ken (tokhen, "task," "measure"; Codex Vaticanus Thokka; Codex Alexandrinus Thochchan): One of the cities of Simeon, mentioned with Rimmen and Ashan (1 Ch 4:32). The name does not appear in Joshua's list (Josh 19:7), but in that place the Septuagint gives Thokka, from which we may infer that the name has fallen out in the Hebrew. It is not identified.


TOGARMAH

to-gar'-ma (~togharmah]; Thorgama, Thergama, Thurgama, Thurgaba; Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) Thorgoma):

1. Its Forms: A Suggested Identification:

The 3rd son of Gomer, and grandson of Japheth, his brothers being Ashkenaz and Riphath (Gen 10:3). The meaning of the name is doubtful. Grimm (Gesch. deutsch. Sprache, II, 325) suggests Sanskr. toka, "tribe," and arma = Armenia. Etymological and other difficulties stand in the way of French Delitzsch's identification of Togarmah with the Assyrian Til-garimmu, "hill of Garimmu," or, possibly, "of the bone-heap," a fortress of Melitene, on the borders of Tabal (Tubal).

2. Probably Armenia or a Tract Connected Therewith:

In Ezek 27:14 Togarmah is mentioned after Tubal, Javan and Mesech as supplying horses and mules to the Tyrians, and in 38:6 it is said to have supplied soldiers to the army of Gog (Gyges of Lydia). In the Assyrian inscriptions horses came from Kusu (neighborhoed of Cappadocia), Andia and Mannu, to the North of Assyria. Both Kiepert and Dillmann regard Togarmah as having been Southeastern Armenia, and this is at present the general opinion. The ancient identification of their country with Togarmah by the Armenians, though correct, is probably due to the Septuagint transposition of "g" and "r" (Thorgama for Togarmah), which has caused them to see therein the name of Thorgom, father of Haik, the founder of their race (Moses of Khor, I, 4, secs. 9-11). Ezek 27:14 (Swete) alone has "g" before "r": Thaigrama. The name "Armenia" dates from the 5th century BC.

See ARMENIA ;TABLE OF NATIONS .

T. G. Pinches


TOHU

to'-hu.

See NAHATH .


TOI

to'-i.

See TOU .


TOKEN

to'-k'-n ('oth, usually rendered "sign" (on Dt 22:14 ff see the comms.)): "Sign" and "token" are virtually synonymous words and in the King James Version are used with little or no distinction (in Ex 13, compare 13:9 and 16). If there is any difference, "token" is perhaps more concrete and palpable than "sign," but this difference cannot be stressed. The modern use of "token," however, as a "memorial of something past" found in Nu 17:10; Josh 2:12. the Revised Version (British and American) has substituted sign in Ex 13:16; Ps 135:9; Isa 44:25, and the American Standard Revised Version has "evidence" in Job 21:29 (a needlessly prosaic change). The four New Testament examples, Mk 14:44; Phil 1:28; 2 Thess 1:5; 3:17 (each for a different Greek word) are self-explanatory.

See SIGN .

Burton Scott Easton


TOKHATH

tok'-hath.

See TIKVAH .


TOLA

to'-la (tola`, "worm" or "scarlet stuff"):

(1) One of the four sons of Issachar (Gen 46:13; 1 Ch 7:1), mentioned among those who journeyed to Egypt with Jacob (Gen 46:8 f), and in the census taken by Moses and Eleazar, as father of the Tolaites (Nu 26:23) whose descendants in the reign of David included 22,600 "mighty men of valor" (1 Ch 7:2).

(2) One of the Judges, the son of Puah, a man of Isaachar. He dwelt in the hill country of Ephraim in the village of Shamir, where after judging Israel 23 years he was buried (Jdg 10:1,2). In the order of succession he is placed between Abimelech and Jair. It is interesting to note that both Tola and Puah are names of colors, and that they occur together both in the case of the judge and in that of the sons of Isaachar. They may therefore be looked upon as popular typical or ancestral names of the Issachar tribe, although current critical theories seek an explanation in a confusion of texts.

Ella Davis Isaacs


TOLAD

to-'lad.

See ELTOLAD .


TOLAITES

to-'la-its.

See TOLA .


TOLBANES

tol'-ba-nez, tol-ba'-nez (Tolbanes): One of the porters who had taken foreign wives (1 Esdras 9:25) = "Telem" of Ezr 10:24; perhaps identical with the porter Talmon (Neh 12:25).


TOLL

tol: (1) Aramaic middah, "toll" or "tribute" paid by a vassal nation to its conqueror (Ezr 4:20; 6:8; Neh 5:4); written also mindah (Ezr 4:13; 7:24). More accurately for halakh, "toll," or "way tax" (Ezr 4:13,10; 7:24). In New Testament times the Romans had placed throughout Palestine many toll stations (telonion). Levi the publican was stationed at such a tax office (Mt 9:9; Mk 2:14; Lk 5:27); compare telones, a "tax collector" or "publican." The tax which the Jews paid toward the support of the temple, a didrachma, is called telos, "toll" (Mt 17:25), the same as the word rendered "tribute" (Rom 13:7).

Edward Bagby Pollard


TOMB

toom.

See BURIAL .


TOMORROW

too-mor'-o.

See MORROW .


TONGS

tongz (melqachayim): This word is, where it occurs in the King James Version and the English Revised Version, with two exceptions, changed in the American Standard Revised Version into "snuffers" (Ex 25:38; Nu 4:9; 2 Ch 4:21; see SNUFFERS ), The exceptions are 1 Ki 7:49, "tongs of gold," and Isa 6:6, "taken with the tongs from off the altar."

In Isa 44:12, where another word (ma`atsadh) is used, "the smith with the tongs" of the King James Version is changed in the Revised Version (British and American) into "the smith maketh an axe" (compare Jer 10:3).

See also ALTAR ;TOOLS .


TONGUE

tung: Almost invariably for either lashon, or glossa the latter word with the cognates heteroglossos, "of strange tongues" (1 Cor 14:21), glossodes, "talkative," English Versions of the Bible "full of tongue" (Sirach 8:3; 9:18), glossotomeo, "to cut out the tongue" (2 Macc 7:4), diglossos, "double-tongued" (Sirach 5:9; 28:13). In 1 Tim 3:8, however, "double-tongued" is for dilogos, literally, "two-worded." Where "tongue" in the King James Version translates dialektos (Acts 1:19; 2:8; 21:40; 22:2; 26:14), the Revised Version (British and American) has "language," while for the King James Version "in the Hebrew tongue" in Jn 5:2; Rev 9:11; 16:16 (Hebraisti) the Revised Version (British and American) has simply "in Hebrew." In addition, in the Old Testament and Apocrypha, the King James Version uses "to hold one's tongue" as a translation for various verbs meaning "to be silent"; the Revised Version (British and American) in the Old Testament writes "to hold one's peace" and in the Apocrypha "to be silent," except in Sirach 32:8, where the King James Version is retained (siopao).

The various uses of "tongue" in English are all possible also for lashon and glossa, whether as the physical organ (Ex 11:7; Mk 7:33, etc.) or as meaning "language" (Gen 10:5; Acts 2:4, etc.) or as describing anything shaped like a tongue (Isa 11:15; Acts 2:3, etc.). In addition, both words, especially lashon appear in a wider range of meanings than can be taken by "tongue" in modern English. So the tongue appears as the specific organ of speech, where we should prefer "mouth" or "lips" (Ex 4:10; Ps 71:24; 78:36; Prov 16:1; Phil 2:11, etc.), and hence, "tongue" is used figuratively for the words uttered (Job 6:30; Ps 139:4; 1 Jn 3:18, etc.). So the tongue can be said to have moral qualities (Ps 109:2; Prov 15:4, etc.) or to be "glad" (Acts 2:26); to "love with the tongue" (1 Jn 3:18) is to love in word only, and to be "double-tongued" (Sirach 5:9; 28:13; 1 Tim 3:8 is to be a liar. A further expansion of this figurative use has produced expressions that sound slightly bizarre in English, although their meaning is clear enough: e.g., "Who have whet their tongue like a sword" (Ps 64:3); "His tongue is as a devouring fire" (Isa 30:27); "My tongue is the pen of a ready writer" (Ps 45:1), and, especially, "Their tongue walketh through the earth" (Ps 73:9).

In Job 20:12, "Though wickedness be sweet in his mouth, though he hide it under his tongue," the figure is that of an uncultured man rolling a choice morsel around in his mouth so as to extract the utmost flavor. In Ps 10:7; 66:17 (Revised Version margin), however "under the tongue" means "in readiness to utter," while in Song 4:11, "Honey and milk are under thy tongue," the pleasure of a caress is described. To "divide their tongue" (Ps 55:9) is to visit on offenders the punishment of Babel.

See TONGUES ,CONFUSION OF .

Burton Scott Easton


TONGUES OF FIRE

(glossai hosei puros): The reference in this topic is to the marvelous gift of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-13). After His resurrection the Lord bade His disciples to tarry in Jerusalem until He should fulfill to them the promise of the Father, and until they should be clothed with power from on high (Lk 24:49). Acts 1:8 repeats the same gracious promise with additional particulars: "But ye shall receive power, when the Holy Spirit is come upon you: and ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth." These were probably the last words our Lord spoke on earth before He ascended to the right hand of God.

1. Supernatural Manifestations:

When the Day of Pentecost was fully come and the disciples, no doubt by previous arrangement and with one accord, were gathered together in one place, the promise was gloriously fulfilled. On that day, the 50th after the Passover, and so the first day of the week, the Lord's day, the Spirit of God descended upon them in marvelous copiousness and power. The gift of the Spirit was accompanied by extraordinary manifestations or phenomena. These were three and were supernatural. His coming first appealed to the ear. The disciples heard a "sound from heaven," which rushed with mighty force into the house and filled it even as the storm rushes, but there was no wind. It was the sound that filled the house, not a wind. It was an invisible cause producing audible effects. Next, the eye was arrested by the appearance of tongues of fire which rested on each of the gathered company. Our the King James Version "cloven tongues" is somewhat misleading, for it is likely to suggest that each fire-like tongue was cloven or forked, as one sometimes sees in the pictures representing the scene. But this is not at all the meaning of Luke's expression; rather, tongues parting asunder, tongues distributed among them, each disciple sharing in the gift equally with the others. "Like as of fire," or, more exactly, "as if of fire," indicates the appearance of the tongues, not that they were actually aflame, but that they prefigured the marvelous gift with which the disciples were now endowed.

Finally, there was the impartation to them of a new strange power to speak in languages they had never learned. It was because they were filled with the Holy Spirit that this extraordinary gift was exhibited by them. Not only did the Spirit enable them thus to speak, but even the utterance of words depended on His divine influence--they spake "as the Spirit gave them utterance."

Many attempts have been made by writers on the Acts to explain the phenomenon of Pentecost so as to exclude in whole or in part the supernatural element which Luke unquestionably recognizes. Some try to account for the gift of tongues by saying that it was a new style of speaking, or new forms of expression, or new and elevated thoughts, but this is both unnatural and wholly inconsistent with the narrative where a real difference of language is implied. Others imagine that the miracle was wrought upon the ears of the hearers, each of whom supposed what he heard to be uttered in his mother-tongue. But this view contradicts the distinct statement in Acts 2:4: they "began to speak with other tongues," i.e. the disciples did. It contradicts what the multitude affirmed, namely, "How hear we, every man in our own language, wherein we were born?" (2:8). Furthermore, the view contains an element of falsehood, for in this case the miracle was wrought to make men believe what was not actually the fact. The only reasonable explanation of the phenomena is that which the record bears on its face, and which Luke obviously meant his readers to believe, namely, that the Holy Spirit enabled the disciples to speak in the various languages represented by the multitude gathered together at the time.

2. Sinai and Pentecost:

The scenes witnessed at Pentecost were somewhat analogous to the events which occurred at the giving of the Law at Sinai, but the contrast between them is much more pronounced. We are told in Heb 12:18,19 that "tempest," "fire," and "the voice of words" attended the inauguration of the Mosaic dispensation. Something similar was witnessed at Pentecost. But the differences between the two are very marked. At Sinai there were also the blackness and darkness, the quaking earth, the thunderings and lightnings, the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud, the terror of the people, and the fear of Moses (Ex 19:16-18; Heb 12:18,19). Nothing of this was seen at Pentecost.

The phenomena characterize the two dispensations. That of Sinai was legal. Its substance was: Do and live; disobey and die. Law knows no mercy, extends no grace. Exact justice is its rule, perfect righteousness its requirement, and death its penalty. No wonder terrible things accompanied its proclamation, and Moses trembled with fear. No wonder it was called "a fiery law" (Dt 33:2).

3. Qualities Imparted by the Spirit:

With the advent of the Spirit came perfect grace, divine power and complete pardon for the worst of men. At Sinai God spoke in one language. At Pentecost the Spirit through the disciples spoke in many tongues (15 in all are mentioned in Acts 2). The Law was for one people alone; the gospel is for the whole race. The sound that accompanied the outpouring of the Spirit filled all the house and all the disciples likewise--token and pledge of the copiousness, the fullness of the gift. The tongues of flame signified the power of speech, boldness of utterance, and persuasiveness which from henceforth were to mark the testimony of the disciples.

The marvelous capabilities which the witnesses display after Pentecost are most noteworthy. It is common to admire their courage and zeal, to contrast their fearlessness in the presence of enemies and danger with their former timidity and cowardice. It is perhaps not so common to recognize in them the qualities that lie at the foundation of all effective work, that which gives to witness-bearing for Christ its real energy and potency. These qualities are such as: knowledge and wisdom, zeal and prudence, confidence and devotion, boldness and love. skill and tact. These and the like gifts appear in their discourses, in their behavior when difficulties arise and dangers impend, and in their conduct before the angry rulers. It is altogether remarkable with what skill and tact they defend themselves before the Sanhedrin, and with what effectiveness they preach the gospel of the grace of God to the multitude, often a scoffing and hostile multitude. In Peter's address on the Day of Pentecost there are the marks of the highest art, the most skillful logic, and the most, persuasive argument. Professor Stifler well says of it: "It is without a peer among the products of uninspired men. And yet it is the work of a Galilean fisherman, without culture or training, and his maiden effort." The like distinguished traits are found in Peter's address recorded in Acts 3, in that to Cornelius and his friends, and in his defense when arraigned by the strict believers at Jerusalem for having gone into the company of men uncircumcised and having eaten with them. No less must be said of the equally wonderful reply of Stephen to the charge brought against him as recorded in Acts 7. It is quite true that Stephen did not share in the effusion of the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost, so far as we know, but he did share in the gift and power of the Spirit soon after, for we are told that he was full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, that he was also full of grace and power. Accordingly, it should be no surprise to read, as the effect of his discourse, that the high priest and all the rest who heard him "were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth" (7:54). Stephen spoke with a tongue of fire.

In the management of the serious complaint made by the Grecian Jews against the Hebrews as to the neglect of their widows in the daily ministration (Acts 6:1), and in their conduct and defense when brought before the council, as they were once and again (Acts 4; 5; 12), they exhibited a wisdom and prudence far enough removed from shrewdness and cunning. The qualities they possessed and displayed are uncommon, are more than human, they are the gift of the Holy Spirit with whom they were baptized on Pentecost. So the Lord Jesus had promised (Mk 13:11; Jn 16:13; Acts 1:8).

4. Distinguished from 1 Corinthians 12; 14:

The tongues of fire which we have been considering appear to have differed in one important aspect from the like gift bestowed on the Corinthians (1 Cor 12; 14). At Pentecost the disciples spoke in the languages of the various persons who heard them; there needed to be no interpreter, as was provided for at Corinth. Paul distinctly orders that if there be no one to explain or interpret the ecstatic utterance of a speaker, he shall keep silent (1 Cor 14:28). At Pentecost many spoke at the same time, for the Spirit had perfect control of the entire company and used each as it pleased Him. At Corinth Paul directed that not more than two or at most three should speak in a tongue, and that by course (one at a time). At Pentecost each one of the 15 nationalities there represented by the crowd heard in his own tongue wherein he was born the wonderful works of God. At Corinth no one understood the tongue, not even the speaker himself, for it seems to have been a rhapsody, an uncontrolled ecstatic outburst, and in case there was no one to interpret or explain it, the speaker was to hold his peace and speak to himself and to God, i.e. he must not disturb the worship by giving voice to his ecstasy unless the whole assembly should be edified thereby. Paul sets prophecy, or preaching the word of God, far above this gift of tongues.

It may not be out of place here to say that the so-called "gift of tongues," so loudly proclaimed by certain excitable persons in our day, has nothing in common with the mighty action of the Spirit of God on the day of Pentecost, and hardly anything with that which the Corinthian Christians enjoyed, and which Paul regulated with a master-hand.

See TONGUES ,GIFT OF .

LITERATURE.

Stifler, Introduction to the Book of Acts; Alexander, Commentary on the Acts; Kuyper, Work of the Holy Spirit; Moorehead, Outline Studies in Acts--Ephesians.

William G. Moorehead


TONGUES, CONFUSION OF

tungz:

1. The Narrative:

According to Gen 11:1-9, at some time not very long after the Flood, "the whole earth was of one language and of one speech. And it came to pass, as they journeyed east" (the "they" is left vague) that they settled in the land of Shinar (Babylonia). There they undertook to build "a city, and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven," using the Bah burned brick and "slime" as building materials. The motive was to "make us a name; lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth." This seems to mean that the buildings would give them a reputation for impregnability that would secure them against devastating invasions. "And Yahweh came down to see." And He said, "Nothing will be withholden from them, which they purpose to do. Come, let us go down, and there confound their language." The persons spoken to are not named (compare Gen 1:26; 3:22), nor is it explained how Yahweh, who in Gen 11:5 was on earth, is now in heaven. "So Yahweh scattered them abroad from thence," and the name of the city was "called Babel (babhel); because Yahweh did there confound (balal) the language of all the earth: and from thence did Yahweh scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth."

The purpose of this narrative is the explanation of the diversity of human languages. They originated through an act of Yahweh, in order to destroy the presumptuous designs of the first builders of Babylon.

2. Context:

The section admittedly belongs to J and it has no connection with the matter (mostly P) in Gen 10. For Genesis 10 explains the origin of the nations "every one after his tongue, after their families" (10:5,20,31) as due to the orderly migration and gradual spreading of the sons and descendants of Noah, and names Nimrod (10:10) as the sole founder of Babylon. Nor does 11:1-9 logically continue the J matter in Genesis 9, as too many persons are involved for the time immediately following the Flood. Still, it is quite possible that some J matter was dropped when the J and P sources were united at this point. Another possibility is to see in Gen 11:1-9 the continuation of Gen 4:16-24, which it carries on smoothly, with the same distrust of human culture. The murderer Cain went to the East of Eden (4:16), and his descendants brought in the knowledge of the various arts (4:20-22). These descendants journeyed still farther to the East (11:2), attempted to use their skill in building the tower and were punished by the balal catastrophe. No account of the Deluge could have followed, for all the diversities of languages would have been wiped away by that event.

This assumption of a special, early source within J probably best explains the facts. It is indicated by the very primitive, naive theology, which is much less developed than that of J as a whole. And the obscure relation of Gen 11:1-9 to the Flood narrative is accounted for, for two narratives were combined here, one of which contained an account of the Deluge, while the other did not.

3. Homogeneity:

By using the repeated "going down" of verses 5,7 as a clue, the section can be resolved fairly easily into two narratives, e.g. (1) The men build a tower, "whose top may reach unto heaven," in order to make a name for themselves as marvelous builders. Yahweh, seeing the work beginning and "lest nothing be withholden from them," etc., goes down and confounds their language. (2) The men build a city, as a defensive measure, "lest we be scattered abroad on the face of the whole earth." Yahweh goes down to see and scatters them abroad. For other analyses see the commentaries. But they are hardly imperative. For (2) gives no motive for Yahweh's action, while "city" and "tower," "confusion of tongues" and "scattering," are complementary rather than parallel terms. The supposition that a few words describing Yahweh's return to heaven have disappeared somewhere from verse 6 relieves the awkwardness.

4. Historicity:

The "historicity" of the narrative will be upheld by very few persons of the present day. Human languages began to diverge (if, indeed there ever was such a thing as a primitive language) tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of years before the building of Babylon and long before human beings had attained enough skill to erect the most rudimentary structures, let alone such an elaborate affair as the brick-built city and tower of Babel. And what is true of languages as a whole is equally true of the languages spoken in the vicinity of Palestine. If Egyptian Hittite, and the Semitic group have any common point of origin, it lies vastly back of the time and cultural conditions presupposed in Gen 11:1-9. It is needless to enlarge on this, but for the harm done by a persistent clinging to the letter of the narrative, White's History of the Warfare of Science with Theology may be consulted. It belonged to the genius of the Hebrews to seek religious explanations of the things around them. And such an explanation of the origin of languages is the content of Gen 11:1-9.

5. Sources:

This explanation seems, as yet, to be without parallel, for the translation of the fragmentary British Museum Inscription K 3657 is entirely uncertain. Indeed, legends as to how the differences of human speech began seem to be extremely scanty everywhere, as if the question were not one that occupied the minds of primitive people. Comparative folklore still has much work to do as regards this special topic (for a few references see Encyclopedia Brit, 11th edition, article "Babel" and Gunkel Genesis3 in the place cited.). The other features of the narrative, however, are without great significance. Buildings that were unfinished because the builders offended the gods are fairly abundant, and it is quite possible that the writer of Gen 11:1-9 had some particular Bah structure in mind (see BABEL ,TOWER OF ). Nor are attempts of men to climb into heaven difficult to conceive, when the sky is thought of (as it nearly always was until comparatively modern times) as a material dome. So Greek Baruch (3:6 f) specifies that they "built the tower to the height of 463 cubits. And they took a gimlet, and sought to pierce the heaven, saying, Let us see whether the heaven is made of clay, or of brass, or of iron." Closely parallel to the Babel story is the Greek legend of the giants, who piled Pelion on Ossa in their attempt to storm the dwelling of the gods, and, as a matter of fact, the two accounts seem to be combined in Sib Or 3:97-104.

Whether aided by a tradition about some particular Babylonian tower or not, the localization of the story in Babylonia was inevitable. The Babylonians, above all nations in the world, relied on their wisdom and their skill, and so nowhere but in Babylon would this supreme presumption have been possible. Babylon, the embodiment of pride, at the very beginning of her existence was guilty of an act of pride so overwhelming as to call out God's vengeance. The "folk-etymology" babhel-balal (in Aramaic babhel-balbel) may have been suggested by this story or (perhaps more probably) it may have originated separately, perhaps at first as a piece of deliberate irony. Certainly the many languages that could be heard in Babylon were not without significance for the story.

6. Religious Value:

The religious value of the story is dimmed for the modern reader because of the very primitive concepts that it contains. The men are able to build up into heaven. In order to see what they are doing Yahweh is obliged to "come down." He is obliged to take action lest His dwelling-place be invaded (compare Gen 3:22). And the "let us go down" of Gen 11:7, while certainly not polytheistic, is equally certainly a polytheistic "remnant." On the other hand, it is to be noted that God's power is never in question and that there is no desperate and uncertain battle as in the Greek legend. Important, also (and often overlooked), is the realization that God's power is just as active in Babylon as it is in Palestine. The primal meaning to the Israelite, however, was this: In Babylon was seen the greatest enemy of the people of God, possessing immeasurable resources. Humanly speaking, there were no limits to this power, and if it had been uncontrolled at the beginning, all the world would have been overwhelmed with the rule of evil. This God had prevented.

LITERATURE.

Driver in HDB; Cheyne (art. "Babel, Tower of") in EB; the commentaries. on Gen, especially those of Skinner, Driver, Procksch, and Gunkel.

Burton Scott Easton


TONGUES, GIFT OF

1. Basic Character of 1 Corinthians 14:

A spiritual gift mentioned in Acts 10:44-46; 11:15; 19:6; Mk 16:17, and described in Acts 2:1-13 and at length in 1 Cor 12 through 14, especially chapter 14. In fact, 1 Cor 14 contains such a full and clear account that this passage is basic. The speaker in a tongue addressed God (14:2,28) in prayer (14:14), principally in the prayer of thanksgiving (14:15-17). The words so uttered were incomprehensible to the congregation (14:2,5,9, etc.), and even to the speaker himself (14:14). Edification, indeed, was gained by the speaker (14:4), but this was the edification of emotional experience only (14:14). The words were spoken "in the spirit" (14:2); i.e. the ordinary faculties were suspended and the divine, specifically Christian, element in the man took control, so that a condition of ecstasy was produced. This immediate (mystical) contact with the divine enabled the utterance of "mysteries" (14:2)--things hidden from the ordinary human understanding (see MYSTERY ). In order to make the utterances comprehensible to the congregation, the services of an "interpreter" were needed. Such a man was one who had received from God a special gift as extraordinary as the gifts of miracles, healings, or the tongues themselves (12:10,30); i.e. the ability to interpret did not rest at all on natural knowledge, and acquisition of it might be given in answer to prayer (14:13). Those who had this gift were known, and Paul allowed the public exercise of "tongues" only when one of the interpreters was present (14:28). As the presence of an interpreter was determined before anyone spoke, and as there was to be only one interpreter for the "two or three" speakers (14:28), any interpreter must have been competent to explain any tongue. But different interpreters did not always agree (14:26), whence the limitation to one.

2. Foreign Languages Barred Out:

These characteristics of an interpreter make it clear that "speaking in a tongue" at Corinth was not normally felt to be speaking in a foreign language. In 1 Cor 14:10 English Versions of the Bible are misleading with "there are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world," which suggests that Paul is referring directly to the tongues. But tosauta there should be rendered "very many," "ever so many," and the verse is as purely illustrative as is 14:7. Hence, foreign languages are to be barred out. (Still, this need not mean that foreign phrases may not occasionally have been employed by the speakers, or that at times individuals may not have made elaborate use of foreign languages. But such cases were not normative at Corinth.) Consequently, if "tongues" means "languages," entirely new languages must be thought of. Such might have been of many kinds (12:28), have been regarded as a fit creation for the conveyance of new truths, and may even at times have been thought to be celestial languages--the "tongues of angels" (13:1). On the other hand, the word for "tongue" (glossa) is of fairly common use in Greek to designate obsolete or incomprehensible words, and, specifically, for the obscure phrases uttered by an oracle. This use is closely parallel to the use in Corinth and may be its source, although then it would be more natural if the "ten thousand words in a tongue" of 14:19 had read "ten thousand glossai." In no case, however, can "tongue" mean simply the physical organ, for 14:18,19 speaks of articulated words and uses the plural "tongues" for a single speaker (compare 14:5,6).

3. A State of Ecstasy:

A complete explanation of the tongues is given by the phenomena of ecstatic utterances, especially when taken in connection with the history of New Testament times. In ecstasy the soul feels itself so suffused with the divine that the man is drawn above all natural modes of perception (the understanding becomes "unfruitful"), and the religious nature alone is felt to be active. Utterances at such times naturally become altogether abnormal. If the words remain coherent, the speaker may profess to be uttering revelations, or to be the mere organ of the divine voice. Very frequently, however, what is said is quite incomprehensible, although the speaker seems to be endeavoring to convey something. In a still more extreme case the voice will be inarticulate, uttering only groans or outcries. At the termination of the experience the subject is generally unconscious of all that has transpired.

For the state, compare Philo, Quis rerum. divin., li-liii.249-66: "The best (ecstasy) of all is a divinely-infused rapture and `mania,' to which the race of the prophets is subject. .... The wise man is a sounding instrument of God's voice, being struck and played upon invisibly by Him. .... As long as our mind still shines (is active) .... we are not possessed (by God) .... but .... when the divine light shines, the human light sets. .... The prophet .... is passive, and another (God) makes use of his vocal organs." Compare, further, the descriptions of Celsus (Origen, Contra Celsus, vii.9), who describes the Christian "prophets" of his day as preaching as if God or Christ were speaking through them, closing their words with "strange, fanatical, and quite unintelligible words of which no rational person can find the meaning." The Greek papyri furnish us with an abundance of magical formulas couched in unintelligible terms (e.g. Pap. Lond., 121, "Iao, eloai, marmarachada, menepho, mermai, ieor, aeio, erephie, pherephio," etc.), which are not infrequently connected with an ecstatic state (e.g. Reitzenstein, Poimandres, 53-58).

Interpretation of the utterances in such a state would always be difficult and diversities of interpretation would be unavoidable. Still, with a fixed content, such as the Christian religion gave, and with the aid of gestures, etc., men who felt that they had an understanding of such conditions could undertake to explain them to the congregation. It is to be noted, however, that Paul apparently does not feel that the gift of interpretation is much to be relied on, for otherwise he would have appraised the utility of tongues more highly than he does. But the popularity of tongues in Corinth is easily understood. The speaker was felt to be taken into the closest of unions with God and hence, to be an especial object of God's favor. Indeed, the occurrence of the phenomenon in a neo-convert was irrefragable proof that the conversion was approved by God (Acts 10:44-48; 11:15; 19:6). So in Mk 16:17 the gift is treated as an exceptional and miraculous divine blessing (in this verse "new" is textually uncertain, and the meaning of the word, if read, is uncertain also). Moreover, for the more selfish, the gift was very showy (1 Cor 13:1 suggests that it was vociferous), and its possession gratified any desire for personal prominence.

4. The Account in Acts 2:

The account in Acts 2 differs from that of 1 Cor 14 in making the tongues foreign languages, although the ability to use such languages is not said to have become a permanent apostolic endowment. (Nor is it said that the speech of Acts 2:14-36 was delivered in more than one language.) When the descent of the Spirit occurred, those who were assembled together were seized with ecstasy and uttered praises to God. A crowd gathered and various persons recognized words and phrases in their own tongues; nothing more than this is said. That the occasion was one where a miracle would have had unusual evidential value is evident, and those who see a pure miracle in the account have ample justification for their position. But no more than a providential control of natural forces need be postulated, for similar phenomena are abundantly evidenced in the history of religious experience. At times of intense emotional stress the memory acquires abnormal power, and persons may repeat words and even long passages in a foreign language, although they may have heard them only once. Now the situation at Jerusalem at the time of the Feast gave exactly the conditions needed, for then there were gathered pilgrims from all countries, who recited in public liturgical passages (especially the Shemoneh `Esreh) in their own languages. These, in part, the apostles and the "brethren" simply reproduced. Incomprehensible words and phrases may well have been included also (Acts 2:13), but for the dignity of the apostles and for the importance of Pentecost Luke naturally cared to emphasize only the more unusual side and that with the greatest evidential value. It is urged, to be sure, that this interpretation contradicts the account in 1 Cor 14. But it does so only on the assumption that the tongues were always uniform in their manifestation and appraisement everywhere--and the statement of this assumption is its own refutation. If the modern history of ecstatic utterances has any bearing on the Apostolic age, the speaking in foreign languages could not have been limited only to Pentecost. (That, however, it was as common as the speaking in new "languages" would be altogether unlikely.) But both varieties Luke may well have known in his own experience.

5. Religious Emotionalism:

Paul's treatment of the tongues in 1 Cor 12 through 14 is a classical passage for the evaluation of religious emotionalism. Tongues are a divine gift, the exercise is not to be forbidden (14:39), and Paul himself is grateful that he has the gift in an uncommon degree (14:18). Indeed, to those who treat them simply with scorn they become a "sign" that hardening is taking place (14:21-23). Yet a love of them because they are showy is simply childish (14:20; 13:11), and the possessor of the gift is not to think that he has the only thing worth obtaining (1 Cor 12). The only gift that is utterly indispensable is love (1 Cor 13), and without it tongues are mere noise (13:1). The public evidential value of tongues, on which perhaps the Corinthians were inclined to lay stress, Paul rates very low (14:21-23). Indeed, when exercised in public they tend to promote only the self-glorification of the speaker (14:4), and so are forbidden when there is not an interpreter, and they are limited for public use at all times (14:27,28). But the ideal place for their exercise is in private: "Let him speak to himself, and to God" (14:28). The applicability of all this to modern conditions needs no commentary. Ultra-emotionalistic outbreaks still cause the formation of eccentric sects among us, and every evangelist knows well-meaning but slightly weak individuals who make themselves a nuisance. On the other hand, a purely intellectual and ethical religion is rather a dreary thing. A man who has never allowed his religious emotions to carry him away may well be in a high state of grace--but he has missed something, and something of very great value.

See also SPIRITUAL GIFTS ;TONGUES OF FIRE .

LITERATURE.

Plumptre in DB is still useful. Wright, Some New Testament Problems (1898), and Walker, The Gift of Tongues and Other Essays (1906), have collections of material. Of the commentaries on 1 Corinthians those of Heinrici (latest edition, 1896), Lietzmann (1907) and J. Weiss (1910) are much the best, far surpassing Robertson and Plummer in ICC (1911). For the Greek material, see ... in the index of Rhode's Psyche. Gunkel, Die Wirkungen des heiligen Geistes (1888, 2nd reprint in 1909), was epoch-making. For the later period, see Weinel, Die Wirkungen des Gelstes und der Geister (1899); Lake, The Earlier Epistles of Paul (London, 1911); and see Inge in The Quarterly Review (London, 1914).

Burton Scott Easton


TONGUES, INTERPRETATION, OF

in-tur-pre-ta'-shun.

See SPIRITUAL GIFTS ;TONGUES ,GIFT OF .


TOOLS

toolz: In the Bible, references to the handicrafts are almost entirely incidental, and not many tools are named. The following article aims to give a list of those mentioned, together with those that must have existed also. For detailed description and the Hebrew and Greek terms employed, see the separate articles.

(1) The percussion tool was the hammer, used for splitting or trimming stone, beating metals, and in wood-carving, as well as for driving nails, tent pins, etc. Several words are translated "hammer," but the distinction between them is very vague and in some cases the propriety of the translation is dubious. Certainly no such distinction is made as that between "hammer" and "mallet," nor were separate names given to the different hammers used in the various crafts (compare, e.g., Jdg 4:21; 1 Ki 6:7; Isa 44:12; Jer 10:4--all for maqqabhah).

See HAMMER .

(2) Of cutting tools, the simplest was of course the knife. In Ex 20:25, however, the knife ("sword," English Versions of the Bible "tool") appears as a stone-cutter's implement and is without doubt a chisel. But the hatchet of Ps 74:6 may be a knife.

See HATCHET ;KNIFE .

For ax, again, various words are employed in a way that is quite obscure to us and apparently with meanings that are not fixed. So garzen in Dt 20:19 is certainly an ax, but in the Siloam Inscription (ll 2,4) it is a pickax (see MATTOCK ). The various words translated "ax" (the Revised Version (British and American) "axe") must also somewhere include the word for adz, but the specific term, if there were any such (ma'atsadh(?)), is unknown. But the adz is a very ancient tool and must certainly have existed in Palestine.

See AX (AXE ),AX-HEAD .

The saw was used both for wood and for stone (1 Ki 7:9), in the latter case being employed in connection with water and sand. But sawing stone was a very laborious process, and this was one reason why the ancients preferred stone in large blocks. These were quarried by the use of heavy hammers and wedges.

See SAW .

The plane (maqtso`ah) of Isa 44:13 should be translated chisel. Chisels, of course, are almost as old as humanity, and were used on both wood and stone and doubtless also on metals. In particular, with a broad chisel and an adz the surface of wood may be finished very smoothly, and these two implements took the place of the plane. For wood-carving the concave chisel (gouge) may have been invented.

The pencil of Isa 44:13 is probably a stylus, for engraving as well as for marking out lines. For engraving on gems (Ex 28:9, etc.) particularly delicate instruments of this kind must have been used.

See LINE ;PENCIL .

(3) Among the boring tools, only the awl appears (Ex 21:6; Dt 15:17), an instrument primarily for the use of workers in leather. Holes in wood or stone were made by a drill, often worked with the aid of a drawn bow, through the string of which the drill was passed.

See AWL .

(4) Blunted tools were of course sharpened on stones, as everywhere. In 1 Sam 13:21 English Versions of the Bible speaks of sharpening with a file, but the text of the verse is hopelessly corrupt and the translation mere guesswork. But files of some sort (stone?) must of course have been used by metal-workers.

See FILE .

(5) Measuring tools were the line and the rod (see REED ), and the latter must also have been used as a straight-edge. The compasses of Isa 44:13 were for drawing circles, but doubtless served for measuring also. See COMPASSES . Plumb-line ('anakh in Am 7:7 f, a symbol of the searching moral investigation which would be followed by a precise and exact judgment; compare mishkoleth, "plummet," 2 Ki 21:13; Isa 28:17) and plummet ('ebhen bedhil, "a stone of tin," Zec 4:10, used by Zerubbabel in testing the completed walls) were likewise necessities and had existed from a very early period. Tools of some sort must have been used in addition by builders in drawing plans, but their nature is unknown.

See LINE .

(6) The tools for holding and handling work (vises, tongs, pincers, etc.) are never alluded to (the King James Version in Isa 44:12 is wrong; see TONGS ). For moving larger objects no use was made of cranes, and lifting was done by the aid of inclined planes and rollers; but blocks of stone weighing hundreds of tons could be handled in this way.

The material of the Hebrew tools was either iron or bronze. The former was introduced at least by the time of David (2 Sam 12:31), but the mention of iron as a material is often made in such a way (Am 1:3, etc.) as to show that it was not to be taken for granted. In fact, iron was hard to work and expensive, and bronze probably persisted for a while as a cheaper material. Stone tools would be used only by the very poor or as occasional makeshifts or for sacred purposes (Josh 5:2).

For the agricultural tools see AGRICULTURE .

See also CARPENTER ;CRAFTS ;POTTER ;SMITH , etc.

Burton Scott Easton


TOPARCHY

to'-par-ki, top'-ar-ki (toparchia): the King James Version renders this Greek word by "government" in 1 Macc 11:28 (the King James Version margin and the Revised Version (British and American) "province"). It denotes a small administrative district corresponding to the modern Turkish Nahieh, administered by a Mudir. Three such districts were detached from the country of Samaria and added to Judea. Elsewhere (1 Macc 10:30; 11:34) the word used to describe them is nomos. Some idea of the size of these districts may be gathered from the fact that Judea was divided into ten (Pliny v.14) or eleven (BJ, III, iii, 5) toparchies.


TOPAZ

to'-paz.

See STONES ,PRECIOUS .


TOPHEL

to'-fel (tophel; Tophol): This name is found in a passage with many difficulties (Dt 1:1). The verse ostensibly makes clearer the position occupied by the camp of Israel where Moses addressed the people, by reference to certain other places which might be presumed to be better known. Not one of them, however, has been satisfactorily identified. Some think Tophel may be represented by the modern et-tafeleh, 15 miles Southeast of the Dead Sea, on the caravan road from Petra to Kerak. Apart from the question of position, the change of "t" to "T" is not easily explained. Meantime we must suspend judgment.

W. Ewing


TOPHETH

to'-feth (ha-topheth, etymology uncertain; the most probable is its connection with a root meaning "burning"--the "place of burning"; the King James Version, Tophet, except in 2 Ki 23:10): The references are to such a place: "They have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire" (Jer 7:31). On account of this abomination Topheth and the Valley of Hinnom should be called "The valley of Slaughter: for they shall bury in Topheth, till there be no place to bury," the Revised Version margin "because there shall be no place else" (Jer 7:32); see also Jer 19:6,12,13,14. Josiah is said to have "defiled Topheth" as part of his great religious reforms (2 Ki 23:10). The site of this shameful place would seem to have been either at the lower end of the Valley of Hinnom (see HINNOM ,VALLEY OF ), near where Akeldama is now pointed out, or in the open ground where this valley joins the Kidron.

E. W. G. Masterman


TORAH

to'-ra.

See LAW IN THE OLD TESTAMENT ;REVELATION .


TORCH

torch (lappidh; lampas; in the King James Version this word occurs only 4 times (Nah 2:3,4 (Hebrew 4,5); Zec 12:6; Jn 18:3). In the Revised Version (British and American) it is found 10 times (Gen 15:17; Jdg 7:16,20; Job 41:19 (Hebrew 11); Ezek 1:13; Dan 10:6; Nah 2:4 (Hebrew 5); Zec 12:6; Jn 18:3; Rev 8:10)): A flambeau; a large portable light.

See LAMP ;LANTERN .


TORMAH

tor'-ma (tormah, "fraud"; Codex Vaticanus en kruphe, "in secret," Codex Alexandrinus meta doron, "with gifts"): This name is given in EVm as an alternative to "privily" , or "craftily" the Revised Version (British and American) (Jdg 9:31). There is no knowledge of such a place. The text is corrupt.


TORMENT, PLACE OF

tor'-ment: A literal translation in Lk 16:28 of topos tes basanou.

See HELL .


TORMENTOR

tor-men'-ter: the King James Version 2 Macc 7:29 for demios "belonging to the people," and so "public executioner," the Revised Version (British and American) "butcher." A term of utter contempt, whose force is lost in the King James Version. Also Mt 18:34 for basanistes, "torturer." Normally the bankrupt debtor was sold into slavery. But, apparently, in extreme cases (where concealment of assets was suspected?) the defaulter was sent to prison until restitution should be made. Probably the imprisonment itself was regarded as "torment" (as it doubtless was), and the "tormentors" need mean nothing more than jailers.

Burton Scott Easton


TORTOISE

tor'-tus, tor'-tis, tor'-tois. (the King James Version) (tsabh, the Revised Version (British and American) "great lizard"; compare the Arabic word, dabb, the thorny-tailed lizard): The word tsabh occurs as the name of an animal only in Lev 11:29, being the third in the list of unclean "creeping things."

The same word is found in Isa 66:20, translated "litters," and in Nu 7:3, where `eghloth tsabh is translated "covered wagons." Gesenius derives the word, in all senses, from the root cabhabh, "to move gently," "to flow"; compare Arabic dabba, "to flow." The Arabic noun dabb is Uromastix spinipes, the Arabian thorny-tailed lizard. This lizard is about 18 inches long, its relatively smooth body being terminated with a great tail armed with rings of spiny scales. The Arabs have a familiar proverb, 'a`kad min dhanab ud-dabb, "knottier than the tail of the dabb." The Septuagint has for tsabh in Lev 11:29 ho krokodeilos ho chersaios, the English equivalent of which, "land-crocodile," is used by the Revised Version (British and American) for the fifth in the list of unclean "creeping things," koach, the King James Version "chameleon."

The writer does not know what can have led the translators of the King James Version to use here the word "tortoise." Assuming that the thorny-tailed lizard is meant, the "great lizard" of the Revised Version (British and American) may be considered to be a fair translation.

See LIZARD .

Alfred Ely Day


TOTEMISM

to'-tem-iz'-m: How far the belief in totems and totemistic relationships existed in early Israel cannot be discussed at length here. Evidence of the belief in deified animal ancestors is supposed by some writers to be found in the tribal names Leah ("wild cow"?), Rachel ("ewe"), Simeon (synonymous with the Arabic sim`u, which denotes a cross between a wolf and a hyena), Hamor ("ass"), Caleb ("dog"), Zibiah ("gazelle"), etc. But these names in themselves "do not prove a totem stage in the development of Israel" (HPN, 114); philologically, the view has a shaky foundation (see, e.g. article "Leah" in 1-vol HDB).

Again, it is true that, as a rule, in totemic communities the individual may not kill or eat the name-giving object of his kin, these animals being regarded as sacred in totem worship and therefore "unclean" (taboo) as food. But the attempt to connect such personal names as Shaphan ("rock-badger"), Achbor ("mouse"), Huldah ("weasel")--all from the time of Josiah (2 Ki 22:3,12,14; compare Deborah ("bee"), Gaal ("beetle"?), Told ("crimson worm," "cochineal"), Nabash ("serpent"))--with the list of unclean animals in Lev 11 (see 11:5 (margin),29) and Dt 14 is beset with difficulties (compare, however, Isa 66:17; Ezek 8:10 f), since all the names cannot possibly be explained on this ground.

See also SACRIFICE ,II , 2, (4);VI , 1.

Robertson Smith (followed by Stade and Benzinger) strongly advocated the view "that clear traces of totemism can be found in early Israel" (see HDB ,III , 100). G. B. Gray also seems inclined to favor the view that some of these names may be "indirectly derivative from a totem stage of society" (HDB, III, 483 f), while at the same time he recognizes that "the only question is whether other explanations are not equally satisfactory" (HPN, 105).

Other writers, such as Wellhausen, Noldeke (ZDMG, 157 f, 1886), Marti (Gesch. der israelit. Religion, 4th edition, 24), Addis (Hebrew Rel., 33 f), have opposed or abandoned theory as applied to Israel.

"Upon the whole we must conclude once more that, while it is certainly possible that Totemism once prevailed in Israel, its prevalence cannot be proved; and, above all, we must hold that the religion of Israel as it presents itself in the Old Testament has not retained the very slightest recollection of such a state of things" (Kautzsch, HDB, extra vol, 614 f; compare p. 623).

The theory is also opposed by Job. Jacobs (article "Are there Totem-Clans in the Old Testament?" in Archaeol. Review, III (1889), number 3, 145 ff); F.V. Zapletal, Der Totemismus u. die Religion Israels; and S. A. Cook, in JQR, XIV, number 55.

The evidence on either side is inconclusive, but the weight of authority is opposed to the view that totemism ever existed in Israel. What is certain is that totemism was never a potent factor, either in the early religion of Israel as an organized people, or in any of the dominant cults of the historical period as a whole (see articles "Family" inHDB , I, 850 (Bennett); "Sacrifice,"HDB ,IV , 331 (Paterson], andDEFILEMENT (Crannell),IMAGES , 3, 6 (Cobern), andISRAEL ,RELIGION OF ,II , 1, (4) (Orelli), in this Encyclopedia).

LITERATURE.

In addition to the works cited in the text, see, for theory of the prevalence of totemism in early Israel, W. R. Smith, Religion of the Semites (2nd edition, 1894), Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia (1903); A. F. Scot, Offering and Sacrifice (1900); and I. Benzinger, Hebraische Archaol. (1907); against, Eric Brit, 11th edition, XIII, 177, article "Hebrew Religion" (Whitehouse); Standard BD, 782; Temple DB, article "Shaphan." For a general account and discussion of totemism, see Frazer, Totemism and Exogamy (1910) and The Golden Bough (3rd edition, 1907-13); Westermarck, History of Human Marriage (1891); Deans, Tales from the Totems of Hidery (1898); Lang, Myth, Ritual, Religion (new edition, 1899), The Secret of the Totem (1905), and article "Totemism" in Encyclopedia Brit, 11th edition,XXVII , with extensive bibliography;HDB , extra vol, 115; and Cymru, 1892-93, p. 137; 1893-94, p. 7.

M. O. Evans


TOU

to'-oo (to`u; Codex Vaticanus Thoa; Codex Alexandrinus Thoou): King of Hamath. As an enemy of Hadarezer, after David's victory over the latter, he sent David a message of congratulation (1 Ch 18:9 f). In 2 Sam 8:9 f spelled "Toi."


TOW

to (ne`oreth (Jdg 16:9; Isa 1:31)): The coarser part of flax, with short threads, used as an example of easily inflammable material. Also Isa 43:17 the King James Version for pishtah, the usual word for "flax" (so the English Revised Version), here as used for a wick (so the American Standard Revised Version, the English Revised Version margin).


TOWER

tou'-er.

See FORTIFICATION , I, 5;CITY ,II , 1.


TOWER OF BABEL

See ASTRONOMY ;BABEL ,TOWER OF ;TONGUES ,CONFUSION OF .


TOWER OF DAVID

(Song 4:4).

See JERUSALEM .


TOWER OF EDAR (THE FLOCK)

See EDER .


TOWER OF HANANEEL

See HANANEL .


TOWER OF IVORY

(mighdal hashen): Occurs only in Song 7:4. Cheyne would, not unreasonably, emend the text and read the "tower of Shenir" as a parallel to the "tower of Lebanon" in the same verse. If the reading "tower of ivory" is correct, the reference must be to some piece of furniture in the adornment of which ivory was much used, and when we compare the word mighdal here with its use for a "pulpit" in Neh 8:4, we can think only of a reminiscence of something of the nature of the throne of ivory made by Solomon (1 Ki 10:18).

W. M. Christie


TOWER OF LEBANON

(mighdal ha-lebhanon): (Song 7:4)): The designation "which looketh toward Damascus" compels us to identify it with some portion of, or something in, the eastern range of "Lebanon, toward the sun-rising" (Josh 13:5). It would then of necessity correspond to the chief summit of Hermon, on which there has been from ancient times also a tower-like temple, and from which the view is almost of boundless extent, Damascus with its gardens and groves being surprisingly near and appearing like a beautiful island in a wide extended sea.

See LEBANON .

W. M. Christie


TOWER OF MEAH

me'-a.

See HAMMEAH .


TOWER OF PENUEL

See PENIEL .


TOWER OF SHECHEM

(mighdal shekhem): Mentioned only in Jdg 9:46-49. It seems along with the Beth-millo and the Beth-el-berith to have comprised the three strongest parts of the fortification when Abimelech besieged the town. It was, however, abandoned by its defenders, who took refuge in the Beth-millo, in which they were slain.


TOWER OF SILOAM

See SILOAM .


TOWER OF SYENE

si-e'-ne.

See SEVENEH .


TOWER OF THE FURNACES

See FURNACES ,TOWER OF THE .


TOWN

toun: This word is used to represent a number of different Hob terms in the Old Testament. (1) When any explanatory word or attendant circumstances show that a "city" was unwalled, and sometimes in the contrary case (1 Sam 23:7), the Hebrew `ir is translated "town" by the King James Version, and the Revised Version (British and American) generally agrees with it (Dt 3:5; 1 Sam 27:5; Est 9:19). (2) Both the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) translate chawwoth by "towns" (Nu 32:41; Josh 13:30; 1 Ki 4:13; 1 Ch 2:23), while chatserim and perazoth both appear in the King James Version as "towns," but in the Revised Version (British and American) as "villages" (Gen 25:16; Zec 2:4). See HAVVOTH-JAIR . (3) Bath, literally, "daughter," is sometimes found in the plural between the name of a city and chatserim, "villages," as in Josh 15:45 margin, "Ekron, with its daughters and its villages." "Towns" is evidently the appropriate translation, and, even without chatserim, bath is rendered "town" (the Revised Version (British and American) Nu 21:25, etc.). The same use of "daughter" occurs also in the Greek of 1 Macc 5:65 (thugater), the King James Version "town," the Revised Version (British and American) "village," margin "daughter." (4) the King James Version and the English Revised Version gloss qir, "wall" in Josh 2:15 by rendering it "town wall"; the American Standard Revised Version omits. (5) The Greek term komopoleis (Mk 1:38), being a combination of the words for "village" and "city," is a clear attempt to describe something between the two, and is well translated "town." (6) the King James Version uses "town" (Mt 10:11 etc.) and "village" (Mt 9:35, etc.) quite indifferently for kome; the Revised Version (British and American) has "village" throughout. For similar changes of the King James Version "town" compare 2 Macc 8:6 (chora); 11:5; 12:21 (chorion, the Revised Version (British and American) "place").

See CITY ;VILLAGE .

W. M. Christie


TOWN CLERK

klurk, klark (grammateus): The word "clerk," "writer," "town clerk," "scribe," is found in this meaning only in Acts 19:35, "when the townclerk had quieted the multitude." Cremer defines the word as signifying a "public servant among the Greeks and the reader of the legal and state-papers" (Lexicon of the New Testament). There was considerable difference between the authority of these "clerks" in the cities of Asia Minor and of Greece. Among the Greeks the grammateis were usually slaves, or at least persons belonging to the lower classes of society, and their office was a nominal, almost a mechanical, one. In Asia, on the contrary, they were officers of considerable consequence, as the passage quoted indicates (Thucidydes vii.19, "the scribe of the city") and the grammateus is not infrequently mentioned in the inscriptions and on the coins of Ephesus (e.g. British Museum Inscriptions, III, 2, 482, 528). They had the supervision of the city archives, all official decrees were drawn up by them, and it was their prerogative to read such decrees to the assembled citizens. Their social position was thus one of eminence, and a Greek scribe would have been much amazed at the deference shown to his colleagues in Asia and at the power they wielded in the administration of affairs. See, further, Hermann, Staats Altertum, 127, 20; and EPHESUS.

Henry E. Dosker



Placed in the public domain by SpiritAndTruth.org
Report corrections to contact@SpiritAndTruth.org
(Produced: Thu Nov 30 09:19:30 2000)

Help PreviousNext