krak'nel: Occurs in 1 Ki 14:3, where Jeroboam bids his wife go to Abijah to inquire concerning their son: "And take with thee ten loaves and cracknels" (King James Version margins "cakes," the English Revised Version "cracknels," the American Standard Revised Version "cakes"). The Hebrew word is niqquddim, from naqadh, "to prick" or "mark"; most probably cakes with holes pricked in them like our biscuits.
kraft, kraf'-ti-nes, kraf'-ti, (panourgia), (panourgos): The original meaning is that of "ability to do anything," universally applied in a bad sense to unscrupulous wickedness, that stops short of no measure, however reprehensible, in order to attain its purposes; then, in a modified form, to resourcefulness in wrong, cunning (Dan 8:25; 2 Macc 12:24; the Revised Version, margin "jugglery"). In Lk 20:23, Jesus perceives "the craftiness" of His adversaries, i.e. the complicated network which they have laid to ensnare Him. The art with which a plot is concealed, and its direction to the ruin of others, are elements that enter into the meaning. Heinrici on 1 Cor 3:19 illustrates from Plato the distinction between craftiness and wisdom. There is a touch of humor in 2 Cor 12:16, when Paul speaks of his conduct toward the Corinthians as having been "crafty."
H. E. Jacobs
|| I. SOURCES OF OUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE CRAFTS OF THE BIBLE
1. Written Records and Discoveries of Craftsmanship
(2) Canaanitish and Phoenician
3. Present Methods in Bible Lands
II. CRAFTS MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE
2. Carpentering (Wood-Working)
LITERATURE
I. Sources of Our Knowledge of the Crafts of the Bible.
1. Written Records and Discoveries of Craftsmanship:
Our knowledge of the arts and crafts of Bible times has come to us through two principal ways. First, from Biblical, Assyrian, Babylonian and Egyptian written records. Of these the Egyptian are the most illuminating. Second, from examples of ancient handicraft which have been buried and preserved through many centuries and brought to light again by modern discoveries.
(1) Jewish.
The chief written documents from which we may learn about Hebrew handicraft are the Bible records. A study of what few references there are leads us to believe that before the Israelites came in contact with the people of Canaan and Phoenicia they had not developed any considerable technical skill (1 Ki 5:6; 1 Ch 14:1; 2 Ch 2:7,14; Ezr 3:7). Some of the simpler operations, such as the spinning and weaving of the common fabrics and the shaping of domestic utensils, were performed in the household (Ex 35:25,26) but the weaving and dyeing of fine fabrics, carving, inlaying, metal-working, etc., was the work of foreigners, or was learned by the Jews after the Exodus, from the dwellers in Palestine
The Jews, however, gradually developed skill in many of these crafts. It is believed that as early as Nehemiah's time, Jewish craftsmen had organized into guilds (Neh 3:8,31,32). In post-Biblical times the Jews obtained monopolies in some of the industries, as for example, glass-making and dyeing. These trades remained the secrets of certain families for generations. It is because of this secrecy and the mystery that surrounded these trades, and is still maintained in many places, that we know so little as to how they were conducted. Until recently the principal indigo dyers in Damascus were Jews, and the Jews shared with Moslem craftsmen the right to make glass. In some of the Syrian cities Jewish craftsmen are now outnumbering other native workmen in certain trades.
Few examples of Hebrew handicraft have been discovered by the archaeologists which shed much light upon early Hebrew work. Aside from the pottery of the Israelite period, and a few seals and coins, no traces of Hebrew workmanship remain. It is even doubtful how many of the above objects are really the work of this people.
(2) Canaanitish and Phoenician.
It is generally conceded that what technical skill the Hebrews acquired resulted from their contact with the Canaanites and Phoenicians. Frequent mention of the workmanship of these peoples is made in the Bible, but their own records are silent. Ezekiel's account of the glories of Tyre (Ezek 27) gives some idea of the reputation of that city for craftsmanship: "Thy builders have perfected thy beauty" (Ezek 27:4); "Syria was thy merchant .... Damascus was thy merchant for the multitude of thy handiworks" (Ezek 27:16,18). Adad-nirari III (812-783 BC), the Assyrian king, enumerates the tribute which he exacted from the king of Damascus.
"Variegated cloth, linen, an ivory bed, a seat of inlaid ivory, a table" were among the captured articles. These were probably Phoenician work.
Many examples of Phoenician craftsmanship have been discovered. These are characterized, from the standpoint of art, by a crudeness which distinguishes them from the more delicately and artistically wrought work of their teachers, the Babylonians and Egyptians. The credit remains, however, to the Phoenicians of introducing skilled workmanship into Palestine. The Phoenicians, too, furnished the means of intercourse between the Babylonians and Egyptians. From the very earliest times there was an interchange of commodities and ideas between the people of the Nile and those of the Tigris and Euphrates.
(3) Assyrian and Babylonian.
The Babylonians and Assyrians made few references to their own handicraft in their records, but the explorers of recent years have revealed many examples of the remarkable workmanship of the early inhabitants of Mesopotamia. In referring to a silver vase found in that country (Telloh), dating from the 4th millennium BC, Clay (see "Literature") says "the whole is exceedingly well rendered and indicates remarkable skill, which in no respect is less striking than that of Egyptian contemporaries in this handicraft." Jewelry, weapons, votive images, various utensils, tools of many kinds, statues in the hardest stones, delicately wrought, gems, dating from the times of Abraham and earlier, lead us to ask when these people acquired their skill.
2. and 3. Egyptian and Post-Biblical Craftsmanship:
(4) Egyptian.
The written records of Egypt are doubly important, because they not only refer to the various crafts, but also illustrate the processes by drawings which can leave no doubt as to how the workmen accomplished their ends. The extensive explorations in Egypt have given to the world many priceless relics of craftsmanship, some of them dating from the very dawn of civilization. Among the ruins of early Syrian and Palestinian cities are found numerous objects witnessing to the skill of the Egyptians. These objects and the evidences of the influence of their work on the Phoenician arts show the part that the Egyptians played in moulding the ideas of the workmen who were chosen to build the temple at Jerusalem. In the following brief summary of the crafts mentioned in the Bible, it will be noticeable how well they may be illustrated by the monuments of the Nile country. To confirm the knowledge derived from the above sources, post-Biblical writings and some of the present-day customs in Bible lands are valuable. These will be mentioned in discussing the various crafts.
II. Crafts Mentioned in the Bible.
(For a more detailed treatment of the crafts see under separate articles.)
This industry probably originated in Babylonia, but the knowledge of the process was early carried to Egypt, where later the Hebrews, along with other captives, were driven to making the bricks of the Egyptian kings. The making of sun-dried bricks called for little skill, but the firing and glazing of bricks required trained workmen.
See BRICK .
2. Carpentering (Wood-Working):
Wood was extensively used by ancient builders. With the exception of the Egyptian antiquities, little remains but the records to indicate this fact. Numerous references are made to the carpenter work in building the temple and subsequent repairing of this structure (1 Ki 5:6; 2 Ch 2:3; 2 Ki 12:11; 2 Ch 24:12; 2 Ki 22:6; Ezr 3:7; 4:1). David's house and that of Solomon and his favorite wife were made partly of wood. In the story of the building of the tabernacle, wood-working is mentioned (Ex 25). The people of Tyre built ships of cypress, with masts of cedar wood and oars of oak (Ezek 27:5,6). Idols were carved from wood (Dt 29:17; 2 Ki 19:18; Isa 37:19; 45:20). The Philistines built a wooden cart to carry the ark (1 Sam 6:7). Threshing instruments and yokes were made of wood (2 Sam 24:22). Ezra read the law from a pulpit of wood (Neh 8:4). Solomon's chariots were made of wood (Song 3:9). Inlaid work, still a favorite form of decoration in Syria, was used by the Phoenicians (Ezek 27:6). How the ancient carpenters did their work can assumed from the Egyptian monuments. Some of the operations there pictured are still performed in the same ways.
The terms "carving" and "engraving" are used interchangeably in translating Old Testament passages. The first mention made of engraved objects is the signet of Judah (Gen 38:18). The art of engraving on various hard objects, such as clay, bone, ivory, metals and precious stones, probably came from Mesopotamia. The Hebrews learned engraving from the Canaanites. The nature of this engraving is shown by the Assyrian cylinders and Egyptian scarabs. It is doubtful how many of the signets found in Palestine are Hebrew work, as the engraved devices are mostly Phoenician or Egyptian. From the earliest times it has been the custom in the Orient for men of affairs to carry constantly with them their signets. The seal was set in a ring, or, as was the case with Judah, and as the Arabs do today, it was worn on a cord suspended about the neck. One of the present-day sights in a Syrian city street is the engraver of signets, seated at his low bench ready to cut on one of his blank seals the buyer's name or sign.
The second form of carving is suggested by the Decalogue (Ex 20:4). The commandment explains why sculpturing remained undeveloped among the Jews, as it has to this day among the Moslems. In spite of the commandment, however, cherubim were carved on the wooden fittings of the temple interior (1 Ki 6:23).
Among the peoples with whom the Jews came in contact, stone-cutting had reached a high degree of perfection. No stone proved too hard for their tools. In Egyptian and Phoenician tombs the carving was often done on plastered surfaces.
See CARVING .
Both the Egyptians and Babylonians were skilled in molding and baking objects of clay. The early Babylonian records consist of burnt clay tablets. Glazed bricks formed an important decorative feature. In Egypt, idols, scarabs and amulets were often made of fired clay, glazed or unglazed. By far the most important branch of ceramic art was the making of jars for holding water or other liquids. These jars have been used throughout the East from earliest times. The Jews learned what they knew about this art from the Phoenicians.
See POTTERY .
Dyeing is one of the oldest of the crafts. The only references to the act of dyeing in the Bible are (a) in connection with the dyed skins of animals (Ex 25:5; 26:14), and (b) Jdg 5:30. That it was a highly developed trade is implied in the many other references to dyed stuffs both in the Bible and in profane literature. Cleansing was done by the fuller, who was probably a dyer also.
Very little is known of the work of embroidering, further than that it was the working-in of color designs on cloth. In Ezek 27:7 we learn that it was one of the exports of Egypt.
See EMBROIDERY .
In Dt 33:19 "hidden treasures of the sand" is interpreted by some to mean the making of glass objects from the sand. There can be no question about the Hebrews being acquainted with glass-making, as its history extends back to very early times. The Egyptians and Phoenicians made bottles, glass beads, idols, etc. These objects are among those usually found in the tombs. Glass beads of very early manufacture were found in the mound at Gezer. Some of the pigments used for painting were made of powdered colored glass. In the New Testament we read of the "sea of glass like unto crystal" (Rev 4:6).
See GLASS .
Grinding was a domestic task and can hardly be classed as one of the crafts. When flour was needed, the housewife, or more likely the servant, rubbed the wheat or barley between two millstones (see MILLSTONE ) or, with a rounded river stone, crushed the wheat on a large flat stone. It is still a common custom in Syria and Palestine for two women to work together as indicated in Mt 24:41 and Lk 17:35. Grinding of meal was a menial task, considered the employment of a concubine; hence, setting Samson to grinding at the mill was intended as a disgrace.
The rhythmic sound of the stone cutter at his work never ceases in the prosperous oriental city. It is more common today, however, than in the earlier centuries when only high officials could afford stone houses. Frequently only the temple or shrines or tombs of a city were made of stone. As such buildings were very common, and much attention was paid to every detail of their construction, there was developed an efficient corps of masons, especially in Egypt and Syria. When the Israelites abandoned their nomadic life, among the first things that they planned were permanent places of worship. As these developed into structures more pretentious than mere piles of stones, the builders naturally resorted to the skill of the master builders of the country. A visitor to Jerusalem may still see the work of the ancient masons. The so-called Solomon's quarries under the city, the great drafted stones of the temple area, belong to an early date. The very shape of the masons' tools may be determined from the marks on the stones.
See MASON .
Among the oldest objects that have been preserved are those of silver, gold and bronze. These are proof that the ancients understood the various processes of mining, smelting, refining and working of metals.
See MINING ;METAL WORKING .
The oil referred to in the Bible is olive oil. Pliny mentions many other oils which were extracted in Egypt. The oils were usually extracted by first crushing the fruit and then pressing the crushed mass. At Gezer, Tell es Cafi and other ancient ruins old oil presses have been discovered.
See OIL .
One who has visited the tombs and temples of Egypt will never forget the use which the ancient Egyptian painters made of colors. The otherwise somber effect produced by expansive plain walls was overcome by sculpturing, either in relief or intaglio, on a coating of stucco, and then coloring these engravings in reds, yellows, greens and blues. Architectural details were also painted. The capitals of columns and the columns themselves received special attention from the painter. Colors were similarly used by the Greeks and Phoenicians. In the Sidon tombs, at Palmyra and similar ruins, traces of painting are still evident.
See PAINTING .
The word "paper" occurs twice, once in the Old Testament (Isa 19:7 the King James Version) and once in New Testament (2 Jn 1:12). In Isa 19:7 the Revised Version (British and American) renders "paper reeds," "meadows." PAPYRUS (which see) occurs in Isa 18:2 and the Revised Version, margin of Ex 2:3. The nearest approach to our paper which the ancients possessed was that made from a species of papyrus. The process consisted in spreading out, side by side, long strips of the inner lining of the papyrus reed, then over these other strips at right angles to the first, afterward soaking with some adhesive material and finally pressing and drying. Sheets made in this way were fastened together with glue into a long scroll. The Greek for papyrus plant is "biblos," from which the English word "Bible" is derived. Parchment, leather and leaves were also used as paper. The natives of Syria and Palestine still call a sheet of paper a "leaf" (Arabic waraqet).
The art of perfume-making dates back to the ancient Egyptians. In Ex 30:35 we have the first mention of scented anointing oils. The perfumers' (the King James Version "confectioner" or "apothecary") products were used (a) for religious rites as offerings and to anoint the idols and (b) for personal use on the body or clothes. Some perfumes were powders (incense); others were scented oils or fats (ointments).
See PERFUME .
(The King James Version "Plaistering.") The trade of plastering dates back to the beginning of the history of building. There were two reasons for using plastering or stucco: (a) to render the buildings more resisting to the weather and (b) to make the surfaces more suitable for decoration by engraving or painting.
See PLASTER .
The arts of spinning and weaving were early practiced in the household (Ex 35:25). Many different fibers were spun and woven into cloth. Fabrics of wool, cotton, flax, silk, wood fiber have been preserved from Bible times. In the more progressive communities, the weaving of the fabrics was taken over by the weavers who made it their profession. In 1 Ch 4:21 it is stated that many of the families of the house of Asbea were workers in fine linen. The modern invasion of European manufacturers has not yet driven out the weavers who toil at looms much like those described by the ancient Egyptian drawings.
Although it is known that tanning was practiced, the only reference to this trade mentioned in the Bible is to Simon the tanner (Acts 9:43; 10:6,32). Leather girdles are mentioned in 2 Ki 1:8; Mt 3:4. Relics taken from the tombs show that the ancients understood the various methods for preserving skins which are used in present-day practice.
See TANNER .
We think of Paul as the tent-maker. The tents which he made however were probably not like those so frequently referred to in the Old Testament. Tents in Paul's time were made from Cilician cloth. Paul's work was probably the sewing together of the proper lengths of cloth and the attaching of ropes and loops. In Old Testament times the tents were made of strips of coarse goat's hair cloth or of the skins of animals.
See TENT .
This article is being written within sound of festivities about the winepresses of Mt. Lebanon where men and women are gathered for the annual production of wine and molasses (Arabic, dibs). Their process is so like that of Bible times that one is transported in thought to similar festivities that must have attended the wine-making even so far back as the early Egyptian kings. That these workers understood the precautions necessary for procuring a desirable product is evidenced by early writings. The choice of proper soil for the vineyards, the adding of preservatives to keep the wine, boiling the juice to kill undesirable ferments, guarding against putting new wine into old bottles, are examples of their knowledge of wine-making.
See WINE PRESS .
Craftsmen were early segregated into groups. A trade usually remained in a family. This is true to some extent in the East today. In such cities as Beirut, Damascus, or Aleppo the shops of the craftsmen of a given trade will be found grouped together. There is a silver and goldsmiths' market (Arabic suq), an iron market, a dyeing quarter, etc. Jewish craftsmen in early times sat separately in the synagogues. Some crafts were looked upon with disfavor, especially those which brought men in contact with women, as for example, the trade of goldsmith, carder, weaver, fuller or tanner. There was a fellow-feeling among craftsmen referred to by Isaiah (Isa 41:6,7). This same feeling is observed among Syrian workmen today. The Arab has many phrases of encouragement for a man at his work, such as, "Peace to your hands," "May God give you strength." A crowd of men pulling at a pulley rope, for example, shout or sing together as they pull.
LITERATURE.
Perrot and Chipiez, History of Art in Sardinia, Judea, etc.; History of Art in Ancient Egypt; History of Art in Phoenicia and Cyprus; Wilkinson, The Ancient Egyptians; Macalister, Bible Side-Lights from the Mound of Gezer; Standard Dict. of the Bible; Bliss, Macalister and Wunsch, Excavations in Palestine; Hilprecht, Explorations in Bible Lands during the 19th Century; Harper, The Bible and Modern Discoveries; Delitzsch, Jewish Artisan Life, etc.; Clay, Light on the Old Testament from Babel; Jewish Encyclopedia.
James A. Patch
krag (shen (1 Sam 7:12; 14:4; Job 39:28 the King James Version and the English Revised Version)): In a mountainous country composed of sedimentary rocks, like the cretaceous rocks of Palestine, cliffs are formed on a slope where hard strata are underlaid by softer strata. The soft strata wear away more rapidly, undermining the hard strata above them, which for a time project, but finally break off by vertical joint planes, the fragments rolling down to form the talus slope at the foot of the cliff. As the breaking off of the undermined hard strata proceeds irregularly, there are left projecting crags, sometimes at the top of the cliff, and sometimes lower down. Two such crags (shen ha-cela`, "sharp rock," the Revised Version (British and American) "rocky crag"), which were given particular names, Bozez and Seneh, marked the scene of the exploit of Jonathan described in 1 Sam 14. Conder failed to identify the crags, and it has been proposed to alter the text rather extensively to make it read: "wall of rock" instead of "crag" (Encyclopedia Biblica, under the word "Michmash"). Such rocks form safe resting-places for birds of prey, as it is said of the eagle in Job 39:28 English Revised Version:
"She dwelleth on the rock and hath her lodging there,
Upon the crag of the rock, and the stronghold."
Alfred Ely Day
kran (`aghur; geranos; Latin Grus cinerea): A bird of the family gruidae. The crane is mentioned twice in the Bible: once on account of its voice (Isa 38:14: "Like a swallow or a crane, so did I chatter"); again because of the unforgettable picture these birds made in migration (Jer 8:7): "Yea, the stork in the heavens knoweth her appointed times; and the turtle-dove and the swallow and the crane observe the time of their coming; but my people know not the law of Yahweh." Some commentators have adduced reasons for dropping the crane from the ornithology of the Bible, but this never should be permitted. They were close relatives of stork, heron and ibis; almost as numerous as any of these, and residents of Palestine, except in migration. The two quotations concerning them fit with their history, and point out the two features that made them as noticeable as any birds of Palestine. Next to the ostrich and pelican they were the largest birds, having a wing sweep of 8 ft. from tip to tip and standing 4 ft. in height. In migration such immense flocks passed over Palestine as to darken the sky, and when they crossed the Red Sea they appeared to sweep from shore to shore, and so became the most noticeable migratory bird, for which reason, no doubt, they were included in Isaiah's reference to spring migration with the beloved doves, used in sacrifice and for caged pets, and with the swallows that were held almost sacred because they homed in temples. Not so many of them settled in Palestine as of the storks, but large flocks lived in the wilderness South of Jerusalem, and a few pairs homed near water as far north as Merom. The grayish-brown cranes were the largest, and there were also a crested, and a white crane. They nested on the ground or in trees and laid two large eggs, differing with species. The eggs of the brown bird were a light drab with brown speckles, and those of the white, rough, pale-blue with brown splotches. They were not so affectionate in pairs or to their young as storks, but were average parents. It is altogether probable that they were the birds intended by Isaiah, because they best suited his purpose, the crane and the swallow being almost incessant talkers among birds. The word "chatter," used in the Bible, exactly suits the notes of a swallow, but is much too feeble to be used in describing the vocalizing of the crane. They migrated in large wedge-shaped companies and cried constantly on wing. They talked incessantly while at the business of living, and even during the watches of the night they scarcely ceased passing along word that all was well, or sending abroad danger signals. The Arabs called the cry of the cranes "bellowing." We usually express it by whooping or trumpeting. Any of these words is sufficiently expressive to denote an unusual voice, used in an unusual manner, so that it appealed to the prophet as suitable for use in a strong comparison.
Gene Stratton-Porter
krash'-ing (shebher): This word, meaning "a breach," figuratively "destruction," is translated "crashing" in Zeph 1:10: "a great crashing from the hills," representing the doom to fall on evil-doers in Jerusalem, as the enemy advanced against the city from the north.
kra'-tez (Krates), governor of the Cyprians, left as deputy of Sostratus when the latter, who was governor of Jerusalem, was summoned to Antioch by Antiochus Epiphanes, in consequence of a dispute with Menelaus (2 Macc 4:29). As Cyprus was not at the time in the possession of Antiochus, the words have been generally taken to mean Krates "who had formerly been, or afterward was, governor of the Cyprians." The Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) translates the Greek into "Sostratus autem praelatus est Cypriis."
kre-a'-shun (bara' "to create"; ktisis, "that which is created," "creature"):
1. Creation as Abiding
2. Mistaken Ideas
3. True Conception
4. The Genesis Cosmogony
5. Matter not Eternal
6. "Wisdom" in Creation
7. A Free, Personal Act
8. Creation and Evolution
9. Is Creation Eternal?
10. Creation ex nihilo
11. From God's Will
12. Error of Pantheism
13. First Cause a Necessary Presupposition
14. The End--the Divine Glory
LITERATURE
Much negative ground has been cleared away for any modern discussion of the doctrine of creation. No idea of creation can now be taken as complete which does not include, besides the world as at first constituted, all that to this day is in and of creation. For God creates not being that can exist independently of Him, His preserving agency being inseparably connected with His creative power. We have long ceased to think of God's creation as a machine left, completely made, to its own automatic working. With such a doctrine of creation, a theistic evolution would be quite incompatible.
Just as little do we think of God's creative agency, as merely that of a First Cause, linked to the universe from the outside by innumerable sequences of causes and effects. Nature in her entirety is as much His creation today as she ever was. The dynamic ubiquity of God, as efficient energy, is to be affirmed. God is still All and in All, but this in a way sharply distinguished from pantheistic views, whether of the universe as God, or of God as the universe. Of His own freedom He creates, so that Gnostic theories of natural and necessary emanation are left far behind. Not only have the "carpenter" and the "gardener" theories--with, of course, the architect or world-builder theory of Plato--been dismissed; not only has the conception of evolution been proved harmonious with creative end, plan, purpose, ordering, guidance; but evolutionary science may itself be said to have given the thought of theistic evolution its best base or grounding. The theistic conception is, that the world--that all cosmic existences, substances, events--depend upon God.
The doctrine of creation--of the origin and persistence, of all finite existences--as the work of God, is a necessary postulation of the religious consciousness. Such consciousness is marked by deeper insight than belongs to science. The underlying truth is the anti-patheistic one, that the energy and wisdom--by which that, which was not, became--were, in kind, other than its own. For science can but trace the continuity of sequences in all Nature, while in creation, in its primary sense, this law of continuity must be transcended, and the world viewed solely as product of Divine Intelligence, immanent in its evolution. For God is the Absolute Reason, always immanent in the developing universe. Apart from the cosmogonic attempts at the beginning of Genesis, which are clearly religious and ethical in scope and character, the Old Testament furnishes no theoretic account of the manner and order in which creative process is carried on.
The early chapters of Genesis were, of course, not given to reveal the truths of physical science, but they recognize creation as marked by order, continuity, law, plastic power of productiveness in the different kingdoms, unity of the world and progressive advance. The Genesis cosmogony teaches a process of becoming, as well as a creation (see EVOLUTION ). That cosmogony has been recognized by Haeckel as meritoriously marked by the two great ideas of separation or differentiation, and of progressive development or perfecting of the originally simple matter. The Old Testament presents the conception of time-worlds or successive ages, but its real emphasis is on the energy of the Divine Word, bringing into being things that did not exist.
The Old Testament and the New Testament, in their doctrine of creation, recognize no eternal matter before creation. We cannot say that the origin of matter is excluded from the Genesis account of creation, and this quite apart from the use of bard', as admitting of material and means in creation. But it seems unwise to build upon Genesis passages that afford no more than a basis which has proved exegetically insecure. The New Testament seems to favor the derivation of matter from the non-existent--that is to say, the time-worlds were due to the effluent Divine Word or originative Will, rather than to being built out of God's own invisible essence. So the best exegesis interprets Heb 11:3.
In Old Testament books, as the Psalms, Proverbs, and Jeremiah, the creation is expressly declared to be the work of Wisdom--a Wisdom not disjoined from Goodness, as is yet more fully brought out in the Book of Job. The heavens declare the glory of God, the world manifests or reveals Him to our experience, as taken up and interpreted by the religious consciousness. The primary fact of the beginning of the time-worlds--the basal fact that the worlds came into being by the Word of God--is something apprehensible only by the power of religious faith, as the only principle applicable to the case (Heb 11:3). Such intuitive faith is really an application of first principles in the highest--and a truly rational one (see LOGOS ). In creation, God is but expressing or acting out the conscious Godhood that is in Him. In it the thought of His absolute Wisdom is realized by the action of His perfect Love. It is philosophically necessary to maintain that God, as the Absolute Being, must find the end of creation in Himself. If the end were external to, and independent of, Him, then would He be conditioned thereby.
What the religious consciousness is concerned to maintain is, the absolute freedom of God in the production of the universe, and the fact that He is so much greater than the universe that existence has been by Him bestowed on all things that do exist. The Scriptures are, from first to last, shot through with this truth. Neither Kant nor Spencer, from data of self-consciousness or sense-perception, can rise to the conception of creation, for they both fail to reach the idea of Divine Personality. The inconceivability of creation has been pressed by Spencer, the idea of a self-existent Creator, through whose agency it has been made, being to him unthinkable. As if it were not a transparent sophism, which Spencer's own scientific practice refuted, that a hypothesis may not have philosophical or scientific valuee, because it is what we call unthinkable or inconceivable. As if a true and sufficient cause were not enough, or a Divine act of will were not a vera causa. Dependent existence inevitably leads thought to demand existence that is not dependent.
Creation is certainly not disproved by evolution, which does not explain the origin of the homogeneous stuff itself, and does not account for the beginning of motion within it. Of the original creative action, lying beyond mortal ken or human observation, science--as concerned only with the manner of the process--is obviously in no position to speak. Creation may, in an important sense, be said not to have taken place in time, since time cannot be posited prior to the existence of the world. The difficulties of the ordinary hypothesis of a creation in time can never be surmounted, so long as we continue to make eternity mean simply indefinitely prolonged time. Augustine was, no doubt, right when, from the human standpoint, he declared that the world was not made in time, but with time. Time is itself a creation simultaneous with, and conditioned by, world-creation and movement. To say, in the ordinary fashion, that God created in time, is apt to make time appear independent of God, or God dependent upon time. Yet the time-forms enter into all our psychological experience, and a concrete beginning is unthinkable to us.
The time-conditions can be transcended only by some deeper intuition than mere logical insight can supply--by such intuitive endeavor, in fact, as is realized in the necessary belief in the self-existent God If such an eternal Being acts or creates, He may be said to act or create in eternity; and it is legitimate enough, in such wise, to speak of His creative act as eternal. This seems preferable to the position of Origen, who speculatively assumed an eternal or unbeginning activity for God as Creator, because the Divine Nature must be eternally self-determined to create in order to the manifestation of its perfections. Clearly did Aquinas perceive that we cannot affirm an eternal creation impossible, the creative act not falling within our categories of time and space. The question is purely one of God's free volition, in which--and not in "nothing"--the Source of the world is found.
This brings us to notice the frequently pressed objection that creation cannot be out of nothing, since out of nothing comes nothing. This would mean that matter is eternal. But the eternity of matter, as something other than God, means its independence of God, and its power to limit or condition Him. We have, of course, no direct knowledge of the origin of matter, and the conception of its necessary self-existence is fraught with hopeless difficulties and absurdities. The axiom, that out of nothing nothing comes, is not contradicted in the case of creation. The universe comes from God; it does not come from nothing. But the axiom does not really apply to the world's creation, but only to the succession of its phenomena. Entity does not spring from non-entity. But there is an opposite and positive truth, that something presupposes something, in this case rather some One--aliquis rather than aliquid.
It is enough to know that God has in Himself the powers and resources adequate for creating, without being able to define the ways in which creation is effected by Him. It is a sheer necessity of rational faith or spiritual reason that the something which conditions the world is neither hule, nor elemental matter, but personal Spirit or originative Will. We have no right to suppose the world made out of nothing, and then to identify, as Erigena did, this "nothing" with God's own essence. What we have a right to maintain is, that what God creates or calls into being owes its existence to nothing save His will alone, Ground of all actualities. Preexistent Personality is the ground and the condition of the world's beginning.
In this sense, its beginning may be said to be relative rather than absolute. God is always antecedent to the universe--its prius, Cause and Creator. It remains an effect, and sustains a relation of causal dependence upon Him. If we say, like Cousin, that God of necessity creates eternally, we run risk of falling into Spinozistic pantheism, identifying God, in excluding from Him absolute freedom in creation, with the impersonal and unconscious substance of the universe. Or if, with Schelling, we posit in God something which is not God--a dark, irrational background, which original ground is also the ground of the Divine Existence--we may try to find a basis for the matter of the universe, but we are in danger of being merged--by conceptions tinged with corporeity--in that form of pantheism to which God is but the soul of the universe.
The universe, we feel sure, has been caused; its existence must have some ground; even if we held a philosophy so idealistic as to make the scheme of created things one grand illusion, an illusion so vast would still call for some explanatory Cause. Even if we are not content with the conception of a First Cause, acting on the world from without and antecedently in time, we are not yet freed from the necessity of asserting a Cause. An underlying and determining Cause of the universe would still need to be postulated as its Ground.
13. First Cause a Necessary Presupposition:
Even a universe held to be eternal would need to be accounted for--we should still have to ask how such a universe came to be. Its endless movement must have direction and character imparted to it from some immanent ground or underlying cause. Such a self-existent and eternal World-Ground or First Cause is, by an inexorable law of thought, the necessary correlate of the finitude, or contingent character of the world. God and the world are not to be taken simply as cause and effect, for modern metaphysical thought is not content with such a mere ens extra-mundanum for the Ground of all possible experience. God, self-existent Cause of the ever-present world and its phenomena, is the ultimate Ground of the possibility of all that is.
14. The End--the Divine Glory:
Such a Deity, as causa sui, creatively bringing forth the world out of His own potence, cannot be allowed to be an arbitrary resting-place, but a truly rational Ground, of thought. Nor can His Creation be allowed to be an aimless and mechanical universe: it is shot through with end or purpose that tends to reflect the glory of the eternal and personal God, who is its Creator in a full and real sense. But the Divine. action is not dramatic: of His working we can truly say, with Isa 45:15, "Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself." As creation becomes progressively disclosed to us, its glory, as revealing God, ought to excite within us an always deeper sense of the sentiment of Ps 8:1,9, "O Yahweh our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth!"
See also ANTHROPOLOGY ;EARTH ;WORLD .
LITERATURE.
James Orr, Christian View of God and the World, 1st edition, 1893; J. Iverach, Christianity and Evolution, 1894; S. Harris, God the Creator and Lord of All, 1897; A. L. Moore, Science and the Faith, 1889; B. P. Bowne, Studies in Theism, new edition, 1902; G. P. Fisher, Grounds of Theistic and Christian Belief, new edition, 1902; J. Lindsay, Recent Advances in Theistic Philosophy of Religion, 1897; A. Dorner, Religionsphilosophie, 1903; J. Lindsay, Studies in European Philosophy, 1909; O. Dykes, The Divine Worker in Creation and Providence, 1909; J. Lindsay, The Fundamental Problems of Metaphysics, 1910.
James Lindsay
kre-a'-ter (ktistes, 1 Pet 4:19): The distinctive characteristic of Deity, as the Creator, is that He is the Cause of the existent universe--Cause of its being, not merely of its evolution or present arrangements.
The doctrine of His being the Creator implies, that is to say, that He is the real and the exclusive Agent in the production of the world. For, as Herder remarked, the thought of the Creator is the most fruitful of all our ideas. As Creator, He is the Unconditioned, and the All-conditioning, Being. The universe is thus dependent upon Him, as its causative antecedent. He calls it, as Aquinas said, "according to its whole substance," into being, without any presupposed basis. His power, as Creator, is different in kind from finite power. But the creative process is not a case of sheer almightiness, creating something out of nothing, but an expression of God, as the Absolute Reason, under the forms of time and space, causality and finite personality. In all His work, as Creator, there is no incitement from without, but it rather remains an eternal activity of self-manifestation on the part of a God who is Love.
God's free creative action is destined to realize archetypal ends and ideals, which are peculiar to Himself. For thought cannot be content with the causal category under which He called the world into being, but must run on to the teleological category, wherein He is assumed to have created with a purpose, which His directive agency will see at last fulfilled. As Creator, He is distinct from the universe, which is the product of the free action of His will. This theistic postulation of His freedom, as Creator, rules out all theories of necessary emanation. His creative action was in no way necessarily eternal--not even necessary to His own blessedness or perfection, which must be held as already complete in Himself. To speak, as Professor James does, of "the stagnant felicity of the Absolute's own perfection" is to misconceive the infinite plenitude of His existence, and to place Him in a position of abject and unworthy dependence upon an eternal activity of world-making.
God's action, as Creator, does not lower our conception of His changelessness, for it is a gratuitous assumption to suppose either that the will to create was a sudden or accidental thing, or that He could not will a change, without, in any proper sense, changing His will. Again, grave difficulties cluster around the conception of His creative thought or purpose as externalized in time, the chief source of the trouble being, as is often imperfectly realized, that, in attempting to view things as they were when time began, we are really trying to get out of, and beyond, experience, to the thinking of which time is an indispensable condition. God's work as Creator must have taken place in time, since the world must be held as no necessary element in the Absolute Life.
The self-determined action of the Divine Will, then, is to be taken as the ultimate principle of the cosmos. Not to any causal or meta-physical necessity, but to Divine or Absolute Personality, must the created world be referred. "Of him, and through him, and unto him, are all things" (Rom 11:36). This creative action of God is mediated by Christ--by whom "were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him" (Col 1:16).
See CREATION .
James Lindsay
kre'-tur: The word "creature," as it occurs in the New Testament, is the translation and also the exact English equivalent of the Greek ktisis, or ktisma, from ktizo, "to create." In the Old Testament, on the other hand, it stands for words which have in the original no reference to creation, but which come from other roots. Nephesh, "living creature" (literally, "a breathing thing"), occurs in the accounts of the Creation and the Flood and at the close of the lists of clean and unclean animals in Lev 11:46. Chay, "living creature" (literally, "a living thing"), occurs 13 times in Ezek 1; 3 and 10 (see CREATURE ,LIVING ). Sherets, "moving creature" (literally, "a swarming thing," generally rendered "creeping thing," which see), occurs once in Gen 1:20. 'Ochim, "doleful creatures," occurs once only in Isa 13:21. It appears to be an onomatopoetic word referring to the mournful sounds emitted by the animals in question. From the context it is fair to suppose that owls may be the animals referred to.
Alfred Ely Day
(chayyah; zoon): "Living creature" (chayyah) is the designation of each of the composite figures in Ezekiel's visions (Ezek 1:5,13 ff; 3:13; 10:15,17,20) and, the Revised Version (British and American), of the similar beings in the visions of the Apocalypse, instead of the extremely unfortunate translation of zoon in the King James Version by "beasts" (Rev 4:6 ff; 5:6 ff; 6:1 ff; 7:11; 14:3; 15:7; 19:4), which, however, went back to Wycliff, in whose time the word had not the low meaning which "beast," "beastly" have with us; hence, he translates 1 Cor 15:44, "It is sowen beestli body," meaning simply animal (see Trench's Select Glossary); in Rev "the beasts of the earth," the "beasts" that came up, the notable "beast" that men worshipped, represent the Greek therion, "a wild beast."
The "living creatures" in Ezekiel's vision (Ezek 1:5 ff) were four in number, "with the general appearance of a man, but each with four faces and four wings, and straight legs with the feet of an ox. Under their wings are human hands, and these wings are so joined that they never require to turn. The front face is that of a man; right and left of this are the faces of a lion and (of) an ox, and behind, that of an eagle .... out of the midst of them gleam fire, torches, lightnings, and connected with them are four wheels that can turn in every direction, called whirling wheels (Ezek 10:12,13). Like the creatures, these are alive, covered with eyes, the sign of intelligence; the spirit of the living creatures is in them. They are afterward discovered by the prophet to be cherubim" (Schultz, Old Testament Theology, II, 233). See CHERUBIM . In Ezekiel's vision they seem to be the bearers of the throne and glory of God; the bearers of His presence and of His revelation (Ezek 9:3; 10:3). They also sound forth His praise (Ezek 3:12; 10:2). (See Schultz as above.)
The four living creatures in Rev (4:6) are not under the throne but "in the midst of the throne" (the American Revised Version, margin "before"; see 7:17; compare 5:6) and "round about the throne." They are also cherubim, and seem to represent the four beings that stand at the head of the four divisions of the creation; among the untamed animals the lion; among cattle the calf or ox; among birds the eagle; among all created beings the man. It gives "a perfect picture of true service, which should be as brave as the lion, patient as the ox, aspiring as the eagle, intelligent as man" (Milligan in the place cited.). They represent the powers of Nature--of the creation, "full of eyes" as denoting its permeation with the Divine Reason, the wings signifying its constant, ready service, and the unceasing praise the constant doing of God's will. The imagery is founded on Ezekiel as that had been modified in apocalyptic writings and as it was exalted in the mind of the Seer of Patmos.
W. L. Walker
kred'-it (pisteuein; 1 Macc 10:46 the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) "gave no credence"; The Wisdom of Solomon 18:6 the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) "trusted"; 1 Macc 1:30 the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) "credence"): In the modern commercial sense the noun "credit" does not occur in the canonical Scriptures or in the Apocrypha.
kred'-i-ter ((a) nosheh, participle of nashah: Ex 22:24 (English translation: 25); 2 Ki 4:1; Isa 50:1; translated "extortioner," Ps 109:11; "taker of usury," Isa 24:2 the King James Version; (b) malweh, participle of lawah, Isa 24:2 the Revised Version (British and American), the King James Version "lender"; (c) ba`al mashsheh yadho: "lord of the loan of his hand," Dt 15:2; (d) danistes: Lk 7:41, "creditor" the King James Version, "lender" the Revised Version (British and American); compare further danistos, Sirach 29:28, "lender" the King James Version, "money-lender" the Revised Version (British and American)): In the ideal social system of the Old Testament, debts are incurred only because of poverty, and the law protected the poor debtor from his creditor, who in Ex 22:25 is forbidden to demand interest, and in Dt 15:2 to exact payment in view of the nearness of the year of release. 2 Ki 4:1 shows that the actual practice was not so considerate, and in consequence the creditor fell into bad repute. In Ps 109:11 he is the extortioner; in Prov 29:13 the oppressor is evidently the creditor, though a different word is used; compare also Prov 22:7. In Sirach 29:28 the importunity of the creditor is one of the hardships of the poor man of understanding. The actual practice of the Jews may be gathered from Neh 5:1 ff; Jer 34:8 ff; and Sirach 29:1-11.
See also DEBT .
Walter R. Betteridge
kred:
2. In the New Testament--Gospels
LITERATURE
By "creed" we understand the systematic statement of religious faith; and by the creeds of the Christian church we mean the formal expression of "the faith which was delivered unto the saints." The word is derived from the first word of the Latin versions of the Apostles' Creed, and the name is usually applied to those formulas known as the Apostles', the Nicene and the Athanasian creeds.
In this article we shall first indicate the Scriptural foundation and rudimentary Biblical statements upon which the distinctive dogmas of the church are based; and, secondly, briefly describe the origin and nature of the three most important symbols of belief which have dominated Christian thought.
There are three forms in which the religious instinct naturally expresses itself--in a ritual, a creed and a life. Men first seek to propitiate the Deity by some outward act and express their devotion in some external ceremony. Next they endeavor to explain their worship and to find a rationale of it in certain facts which they formulate into a confession; and lastly, not content with the outward act or the verbal interpretation of it, they attempt to express their religion in life.
Pagan religion first appears in the form of a rite. The worshipper was content with the proper performance of a ceremony and was not, in the earliest stage at least, concerned with an interpretation of his act. The myths, which to some extent were an attempt to rationalize ritual, may be regarded as the earliest approach to a formulated statement of belief. But inasmuch as the myths of early pagan religion are not obligatory upon the reason or the faith of the worshipper, they can scarcely be regarded as creeds. Pagan religion, strictly speaking, has no theology and having no real historical basis of facts does not possess the elements of a creed. In this respect it is distinguished from revealed religion. This latter rests upon facts, the meaning and interpretation of which are felt to be necessary to give to revelation its values and authority.
Even in the Old Testament there are not wanting the germs of a creed. In the Decalogue we have the beginnings of the formulation of belief, and in the proclamation, "Hear, O Israel: Yahweh our God is one Yahweh" (Dt 6:4), we have what may be regarded as the symbol of the Old Testament faith and the earliest attempt to enunciate a doctrine.
2. In the New Testament--Gospels:
It is to the New Testament, however, we must turn to find the real indications of such a statement of belief as may be designated a creed. We must remember that Christ lived and taught for a time before any attempt was made to portray His life or to record His sayings. The earliest writings are not the Gospels, but some of the Epistles, and it is to them we must look for any definite explanation of the facts which center in the appearance of Christ upon the earth. At the same time in the sequence of events the personality and teaching of Jesus come first, and in the relation to Him of His disciples and converts and in their personal confessions and utterances of faith we have the earliest suggestions of an expression of belief. The confession of Nathanael (Jn 1:49), "Rabbi, thou art the Son of God," and still more the utterance of Peter (Mt 16:16), "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," and the exclamation of Thomas (Jn 20:28), contain the germ of a creed. It is to be noted that all these expressions of belief have Christ as their object and give utterance with more or less explicitness to a conviction of His Divine nature and authority.
But while these sayings in the Gospels were no doubt taken up and incorporated in later interpretations, it is to the Epistles that we must first go, for an explanation of the facts of Christ's person and His relation to God and man. Paul's Epistles are really of the nature of a confession and manifesto of Christian belief. Communities of believers already existed when the apostle directed to them his earliest letters. In their oral addresses the apostles must have been accustomed not only to state facts which were familiar to their hearers, but also to draw inferences from them as to the meaning of Christ and the great truths centering in His person--His incarnation, His death and resurrection (as we may see from the recorded sermons of Peter and Paul in Acts). It is to these facts that the Epistles appeal. It was at once natural and necessary that some expression of the faith once delivered to the saints should be formulated for a body whose members were pledged to each other and united for common action, and whose bond of union was the acknowledgment of "one Lord, one faith." Paul recognizes it as vital to the very spirit of religion that some definite profession of belief in Christ should be made: "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord, and shalt believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved" (Rom 10:9). These words would seem to imply that a confession of the Deity, the atoning death, and resurrection of Jesus was the earliest form of Christian creed.
It must also be observed that from the very first the confession of faith seems to have been connected with the administration of baptism. Already in the story of the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:37 the King James Version) (a passage indeed of doubtful genuineness but attested by Irenaeus and therefore of great antiquity) we find that as a condition of baptism the convert is asked to declare his belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God. The passage in 1 Tim (6:12; compare Heb 10:23), "Lay hold on the life eternal, whereunto thou wast called, and didst confess the good confession in the sight of many witnesses," may refer to a confession required only of those who were being ordained: but the context leads us to infer that it was a baptismal vow asked of members not less than of ministers of the church. The probability is that the earliest form of creed reflected little more than Christ's final command to baptize all men "into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Mt 28:19), or perhaps simply "into the name of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 19:5). The verse in Acts 8:37 the King James Version, though disputed by some, is instructive in this connection. Faith in Jesus Christ was regarded as the cardinal point of the New Revelation and may have been taken to imply a relation to the Father as well as a promise of the Holy Spirit.
It is evident that the creeds that have come down to us are mainly an expression of the doctrine of the Trinity as embodied in the original baptismal formula derived from Our Lord's commission. Already indeed in some places of the Old Testament this doctrine is foreshadowed; but it is first clearly incorporated in the Lord's command just mentioned and in the benediction of Paul (2 Cor 13:14), and subsequently in the Christian doxologies. Some scholars have preferred to find traces in the later writings of the New Testament of a more definite summary of belief: as in the allusion to the form of sound words (2 Tim 1:13), the "deposit" or "good deposit" which was to be kept (1 Tim 6:20 the Revised Version, margin; 2 Tim 1:14 the Revised Version, margin); also in "the faithful words" enumerated in these epistles (1 Tim 1:15; 3:1; 4:8,9; 2 Tim 2:11); and in the remarkable passage in the beginning of Heb 6 in which the elementary doctrines of the Christian religion are enumerated; first on the subjective side, repentance and faith, and then objectively, the resurrection and the judgment. There are also brief summaries in several of the Pauline Epistles of what the apostle must have considered to be essential tenets. Thus for example we have the death, burial and resurrection of Christ mentioned in 1 Cor 15:3 f; Rom 1:3 f. Such summaries or confessions of personal faith as in 2 Thess 2:13 f are frequent in Paul's writings and may correspond to statements of truth which the apostle found serviceable for catechetical purposes as he moved from one Christian community to another.
See CATECHIST .
It is not indeed till a much later age--the age of Irenaeus and Tertullian (175-200 AD)--that we meet with any definite summary of belief. But it cannot be doubted that these Scriptural passages to which we have referred not only served as the first forms of confession but also contributed the materials out of which the articles of the church's faith were formulated. As soon as Christian preaching and teaching were exercised there would be a felt need for explicit statement of the truths revealed in and through Jesus Christ. It may be said that all the main facts which were subsequently embodied in the creeds have their roots in the New Testament Scripture and especially in the Pauline Epistles. The only exception which might be made is in the case of the virgin birth. It does not lie within the scope of this article to comment upon the silence of the epistles on this subject. This, however, we may say, that the omissions of Paul's reference to it does not prove it untrue. It only proves at most that it was not a part of the ground upon which the Christ was commended to the first acceptance of faith. But though no direct allusion to the virgin birth occurs in Paul's writings the truth which gives spiritual value to the fact of the virgin conception, namely, God's new creation of humanity in Christ, is a vital and fundamental element in the faith both of Paul and of the whole early church. The Christian life is essentially a new creation (2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15; Rom 6:4) in Jesus Christ, the second Adam (Rom 5:12-21), who is from heaven (1 Cor 15:47). Into this spiritual context the facts recorded by Matthew and Luke introduce no alien or incompatible element (compare W. Richmond, The Creed in the Epistles of Paul; Orr, The Virgin Birth of Christ). And therefore the story of Christ's birth as we have it in the Synoptics finds a natural place in the creed of those who accept the Pauline idea of a new creation in Christ.
See VIRGIN BIRTH .
It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss the evidences of development in the main doctrines of the gospel, but however the later ages may have elaborated them, the leading tenets of the subsequent faith of the church--the doctrine of the Trinity; our Lord's divinity and real humanity; His atoning death and resurrection; the doctrine of the Holy Spirit and of the catholicity and unity of the church--stand clear and distinct in these earliest Scriptural sources.
Faith implies a creed as a confession and testimony. Such a confession and testimony answers to a natural impulse of the soul. Hence, a profession of faith is at once a personal, a social and a historical testimony. A formal creed witnesses to the universality of faith, binds believers together, and unites the successive ages of the church. It is the spontaneous expression of the life and experience of the Christian society. As the purpose of this article is chiefly to indicate the Scriptural sources of the creeds rather than to discuss their origin and history, we can only briefly describe the main historical forms which have prevailed in the Christian church.
The Apostles' Creed, in ancient times called the Roman Creed, though popularly regarded as the earliest, was probably not the first in chronological order. Its origin and growth are involved in considerable obscurity (see separate article,APOSTLES' CREED ; and compare Heurtley, Harmonia Symbolica).
The Nicene Creed, called sometimes "the Creed of the 318" from the number of bishops reputed to have been present, was authorized at the Council of Nice in 325 AD, and completed by the Council of Constantinople in 381, when the clauses which follow the mention of the Holy Ghost were added. The opinions of Arius at the beginning of the 4th century created such unrest as to call forth not only the admonition of bishops but also the intervention of the emperor Constantine, who, as a professed Christian, had become the patron of the church. The efforts of the emperor, however, had no effect in allaying the dissensions of the church at Alexandria, which, upon the banishment of Arius, spread throughout eastern Christendom. It was decided, therefore, to convoke a general council of bishops in which the Catholic doctrine should be once and for all formally declared. This, the first ecumenical council, met at Nicea in Bithynia in 325 AD. There is no detailed record of the proceedings. "We do not know whether it lasted weeks or days" (Stanley, Lects on East Ch.). Arius; being only a presbyter, had no seat in the conclave, but was allowed to express his opinions. His chief opponent was Athanasius.
The controversy turned upon the nature of the Son and His relation to the Father. The word homoousios ("of one substance with"), used in the course of the argument with a view of disputeing the extreme orthodox position, became the battleground between the parties. The Arians violently condemned. The Sabellians or Semi-Arians to evade its full force contended for the term homoiousios ("of like substance"). But the majority finally adopted the former expression as the term best suited to discriminate their view of the relation of the Father and Son from the Arian view. The assent of the emperor was gained and the words "being of one substance with the Father" were incorporated into the creed. The clauses descriptive of the Holy Spirit were added or confirmed at a later council (382), and were designed to refute the Macedonian heresy which denied His equality with the Father and Son, and reduced the Holy Spirit to a level with the angels.
The phrase "proceedeth from the Father and the Son" is also of historical importance. The last three words are a later addition to the creed by western churches, formally adopted by the Council of Toledo in 589. But when the matter was referred in the 9th century to Leo III he pronounced against them as unauthorized. This interpolation, known as the Filioque, marks the difference still between the Latin and Greek churches. From the 9th century no change has been made in the Nicene Creed. It has remained, without the Filioque clause, the ecumenical symbol of the Eastern Church; and with the addition of that word it has taken its place among the three great creeds of the Western Church.
The Athanasian Creed, or the Symbolum Quicunque, as it is called, from its opening words, differs entirely in its origin and history from those we have just considered. It is not a gradual growth like the Apostles' Creed, nor is it the outcome of synodical authority like the Nicene Creed. "When the composition appears for the first time as a document of authority it is cited in its completeness and as the work of the Father whose name it has since, in the most part, borne, although it was not brought to light for many centuries after his death" (Lumby, History of the Creeds). Without going into the full and intricate evidence which has been brought forward by scholars to prove that it is incorrectly attributed to Athanasius, it is sufficient to observe that both authorship and date are uncertain. Dr. Swainson proves in the most conclusive manner that the existence of this creed cannot be traced before the age of Charlemagne, and that its origin may probably be ascribed to then existing demand for a more detailed exposition of the faith than was to be found in the Apostles' Creed. It is nowhere mentioned at synods before the end of the 8th century, whose special business it was to discuss the very matters which were afterward embodied within it in such detail.
The question of imposture has been raised with regard to this creed, and it has been maintained by some that it was originally a forgery of the same nature as the "false decretals" and the equally famous "Donation of Constantine" (Swainson). But it may be said that the word "imposture" is incorrectly applied to "a natural and inevitable result of the working of the mind of the Western Church toward a more elaborate and detailed confession of its Trinitarian faith" (Tulloch, Encyclopedia Brit). The imposture, if there was any, consisted not in the origin of the creed but in the ascription of it to a name and a date with which it had no connection. This was done no doubt to secure for it credit and authority, and was supposed to be justified by its special doctrinal import.
This symbol, though too compendious and elaborate to serve the purposes of a creed, itself standing in need of exposition and explanation, has its value as representing a further stage of doctrinal development. If the Apostles' Creed determined the nature of God and the Nicene Creed defined the character and relation of the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Athanasian Creed may be regarded as establishing the great doctrine of the Trinity. Its distinguishing features are the monitory clauses and its uncompromising statement of the value of the Christian faith. The other creeds set forth the mercies of Revelation; this adds the danger of rejecting them. The others declare the faith; this insists also on its necessity. This, also, alone insists upon the necessity of good works (Yonge, An Exposition of the Apostles' Creed). The closing warning is based on Christ's own words: "Depart from me," etc. (Mt 25:41,46). If this creed is solemn in its admonitions, we must remember that so also are the Gospels. On the whole it is a comprehensive summary of truth, laying down the rule of faith as a foundation, following out its issues of good or evil. True belief is closely connected with right action.
With the adoption of the "Athanasian" symbol, the creed-making of the early and medieval church ceases. Of the three mentioned one only in the broadest sense, the Nicene, is Catholic. Neither the Apostles' nor the Athanasian Creed is known to the Greek or oriental church which remained faithful to the faith settled by the holy Fathers at Nicea. The two others adopted by the West are really gradual growths or consequences from it, without any definite parentage or synodic authority. But the faith as defined at Nicea and ratified by subsequent councils is the only true Catholic symbol of the universal church.
With the Reformation a new era of creed-formation began. It will not, however, be necessary to do more than mention some of the confessions of the Reformed churches which consist mainly of elaborations of the original creeds with the addition of special articles designed to emphasize and safeguard the distinctive doctrines and ecclesiastical positions of particular branches of the church. Of this nature are the Confessions of the Lutheran church--the Augsburg Confession of 1530; the Genevese or Calvinistic of 1549 consisting of 26 articles, defining particularly the nature of the Sacraments; confessions of the Dutch church confirmed at the Synod of Dort in 1619 and known as the "Decrees of Dort"; and the famous Heidelberg Catechism. To this series of Protestant confessions must be added the 39 Articles of the Church of England and the Westminster Confession of Faith, which is the doctrinal standard not only. of the churches of Scotland, but of the principal Presbyterian churches of Britain and America.
LITERATURE.
Winer, Doctrines and Confessions of Christendom (translation Clark, 1873): Lumby, History of the Creeds; Swainson, The Nicene and Apostles' Creeds (1875); Heurtley, Harmonia Symbolica (1858); Zahn, Apost. Symb. (1892); Harnack, Apost. Glaubensbekenntnis; Swete, Apostles' Creed; Hefele, Councils of the Church; Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom. For exposition, and of a more popular nature, may be mentioned the works of Hooker, Barrow, and Beveridge, and especially Bishop Pearson; Westcott, Historic Faith; Norris, Rudiments of Theology; W. W. Harvey, The Three Creeds; J. Eyre Yonge, An Exposition of the Apostles' Creed (1888); Wilfred Richmond, The Creed in the Epistles of Paul (1909).
Arch. B. D. Alexander
krek, colloq. krik (kolpos (Acts 27:39), the Revised Version (British and American) "bay"): The spot has been identified as the traditional Bay of Paul about 8 miles Northwest of the town of Valetta in the island of Malta.
See MELITA .
krep'-ing (remes, sherets; herpeton): Remes and sherets, with the root verbs ramas and sharats, are used without any sharp distinction for insects and other small creatures. Ramas means clearly "to creep," and is used even of the beasts of the forest (Ps 104:20), while sharats is rather "to swarm." But in at least one passage (Lev 11:44), we have the noun, sherets, with the verb ramas; "with any manner of creeping thing that moveth upon the earth." The principal passages where these words occur are the accounts of the Creation and the Flood and the references to unclean animals in Lev and in the vision of Peter. In the last we have the word herpeton as the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew words (Acts 10:12). Winged creeping things (sherets ha-`oph, Lev 11:20 ff), as well as the wingless, are unclean, but an exception is made in favor of the locusts, "which have legs above their feet, where-with to leap upon the earth."
Alfred Ely Day
kre-ma'-shun (compare saraph, Josh 7:15, etc., "shall be burnt with fire"; kaio, 1 Cor 13:3, "If I give my body to be burned," etc.): Cremation, while the customary practice of the ancient Greeks, and not unknown among the Romans, was certainly not the ordinary mode of disposing of the dead among the Hebrews or other oriental peoples. Even among the Greeks, bodies were often buried without being burned (Thuc. i. 134,6; Plato Phaedo 115 E; Plut. Lyc. xxvii). Cicero thought that burial was the more ancient practice, though among the Romans both methods were in use in his day (De leg. ii.22,56). Lucian (De luctu xxi) expressly says that, while the Greeks burned their dead, the Persians buried them (see BURIAL , and compare 2 Sam 21:12-14). In the case supposed by Amos (6:10), when it is predicted that Yahweh, in abhorrence of "the excellency of Jacob," shall "deliver up the city," and, "if there remain ten men in one house, that they shall die," and "a man's kinsman (ARVm) shall take him up, even he that burneth him," etc., the suggestion seems to be that of pestilence with accompanying infection, and that this, or the special judgment of Yahweh, is why burning is preferred. When Paul (1 Cor 13:3) speaks of giving his body to be burned, he is simply accommodating his language to the customs of Corinth. (But see Plutarch on Zarmanochegas, and C. Beard, The Universal Christ.)
How far religious, or sanitary, or practical reasons were influential in deciding between the different methods, it is impossible to say. That bodies were burned in times of pestilence in the Valley of Hinnom at Jerusalem is without support (see Ezek 39:11-16). The "very great burning" at the burial of Asa (2 Ch 16:14) is not a case of cremation, but of burning spices and furniture in the king's honor (compare Jer 34:5). Nor is 1 Ki 13:2 a case in point; it is simply a prophecy of a king who shall take the bones of men previously buried, and the priests of the high places that burn incense in false worship, and cause them to be burned on the defiled altar to further pollute it and render it abominable.
There is in the New Testament no instance of cremation, Jewish, heathen or Christian, and clearly the early Christians followed the Jewish practice of burying the dead (see Tert., Apol., xlii; Minuc. Felix, Octav., xxxix; Aug., De civ. Dei, i.12,13). Indeed, cremation has never been popular among Christians, owing largely, doubtless, to the natural influence of the example of the Jews, the indisputable fact that Christ was buried, the vivid hope of the resurrection and the more or less material views concerning it prevalent here and there at this time or that. While there is nothing anti-Christian in it, and much in sanitary considerations to call for it in an age of science, it is not likely that it will ever become the prevailing practice of Christendom.
George B. Eager
kres'-enz (Kreskes, "increasing"): An assistant of Paul, mentioned in 2 Tim 4:10 as having gone to Galatia. That he was one of the Seventy, and that he founded the church in Vienna in Gaul, are traditions without any trustworthy basis.
kres'-ents (saharonim): Moon-shaped necklaces (Jdg 8:21,26; Isa 3:18).f Paul, mentioned in 2 Tim 4:10 as having gone to Galatia. That he was one of the Seventy, and that he founded the church in Vienna in Gaul, are traditions without any trustworthy basis.
kret (Krete, ethnic Kretes, Acts 2:11; Tit 1:12): An island bounding the Aegean Sea on the South. It stretches from 34 degrees 50' to 35 degrees 40' North latitude and from 23 degrees 30' to 26 degrees 20' East long. With Cythera on the North and Carpathos and Rhodos on the Northeast, it forms a continuous bridge between Greece and Asia Minor. The center of the island is formed by a mountain chain rising to a height of 8,193 ft. in Mt. Ida, and fringed with low valleys beside the coast. There are no considerable rivers; the largest, the Metropole, on the South, is a tiny stream, fordable anywhere. An island of considerable extent (156 miles long, and from 7 to 30 miles broad), in several districts very fertile and possessing one or two good harbors, it seems marked out by its position for an important role in the history of the eastern Mediterranean. But never since an age which was already legendary when Greek history began has Crete occupied a dominating position among the powers of the surrounding continents. Internal dissensions, due in ancient times to the diversity of races inhabiting its soil (Eteocretans--the original inhabitants--Pelasgians, Acheans, Cydonians and Dorians), and in modern times to the fact that a large minority of the population has accepted the Ottoman religion along with Ottoman government, have kept Crete in a position of political inferiority throughout the historical period.
Mt. Ida in Crete was famous in Greek legend as the birthplace of Zeus. The half-legendary, half-historical King Minos was said to be the son of Zeus, and to have derived from his father the wisdom to which, by a type of myth common in Greek lands, the constitution of the Cretan cities was ascribed. Minos was accepted as a historical personage by Thucydides and Aristotle, who say that he was the first dynast in Greece to establish dominion on the sea. One of his exploits was the suppression of piracy in Cretan waters, a feat which had to be repeated by the Roman Pompeius at a later period. Aristotle compares the Cretan institutions with those of Sparta; the island was said to have been colonized by Dorians from Peloponnesus (Politics ii.10). The most important cities in Crete were Knossos (whose palace has been excavated with fruitful results by Mr. Arthur Evans), Gortyna, near the Gulf of Messara, and Cydonia, with its river Iardanus. The excavations of Mr. Evans at Knossos and of the Italians at Phastos (near Fair Havens) prove that Crete was a center of Mediterranean civilization in an early age. In the Homeric poems, Crete is said to have contained an hundred cities; at that period the Cretans were still famed as daring sailors. In the classical age of Greek history they never held a leading position. They are mentioned chiefly as traders and mercenary soldiers, skilled especially in archery. During the Hellenistic period Crete remained free. Demetrius Nicator made the island his base of operations before his defeat at Azotus in 148.
In 141, the Cretan Jews were influential enough to secure the patronage of Rome. They were being oppressed by the people of Gortyna, and appealed to Rome, which granted them protection. In strengthening the position of the Jews, the Romans were copying the Seleucid policy in Asia Minor; both the Seleucids and the Romans found the Jews among their most devoted supporters in their subject states. This interference of Rome in the interest of her future partisans paved the way for her annexation of the island in the following century. From this date, there was a strong and prosperous body of Jews in Crete, and Cretans are mentioned among the strangers present at the Feast of Pentecost in Acts 2:11. Its alliance with Mithradates the Great, and the help it gave to the Cilician pirates gave Rome the pretext she desired for making war on Crete, and the island was annexed by. Metellus in 67 BC. With Cyrene on the North coast of Africa, it was formed into a Roman province. When Augustus divided the Empire between the Senate and himself, Crete and Cyrene were sufficiently peaceful to be given to the Senate.
They formed one province till the time of Constantine, who made Crete a separate province. The Saracens annexed Crete in 823 AD, but it was recaptured for the Byzantine Empire by Nicephorus Phokas in the following century. From the 13th till the 17th century it was held by the Venetian Republic: from this period dates its modern name "Kandia," which the Venetians gave to the Saracen capital Khandax, and afterward to the whole island. After a desperate resistance, lasting from 1645 to 1669 AD, Crete fell into the hands of the Turks, who still exercise a nominal suzerainty over the island.
4. Crete in the Old Testament:
In 1 Sam 30:14; Ezek 25:16, and Zeph 2:5, the Philistines are described as Cherethites, which is usually taken to mean Cretans. The name is connected with Caphtor and the Caphtorim (Dt 2:23; Jer 47:4; Am 9:7). The similarity between the river-names Jordan and Iardanos (Homer Odyssey iii. 292) "about whose streams the Kydones dwelt," has suggested that. Caphtor is to be identified with Cydonia; or possibly it was the name of the whole island. Tacitus believed in an ancient connection between Crete and Palestine; the Jews, he said, were fugitives from Crete, and derived their name Iudaei from Mt. Ida (Hist. v.2). Crete is mentioned in connection with the campaign of Demetrius Nicator, referred to above, in 1 Macc 10:67.
See CAPHTOR ;CHERETHITES .
5. Crete in the New Testament:
Crete owes its connection with Pauline history to the accident of a gale which forced the ship carrying Paul to Rome to take shelter on the South coast of the island. In the harbor of Myra, on the coast of Lycia, the centurion in charge of Paul transferred him from the Adramyttian ship which had brought them from Caesarea, to a ship from Alexandria in Egypt, bound for Ostia with a cargo of grain. The fact that the centurion was in virtual command of the ship (Acts 27:11) proves that it was one of the vessels in the imperial transport service. Leaving Myra they came opposite Cnidus with difficulty, against a head-wind. The ordinary course from Cnidus in good weather was to steer straight for Cythera, but on this occasion the West or Northwest winds made this route impracticable, and they sailed under the lee of Crete, whose South coast would shelter them from a Northwest gale, and afford occasional protection from a West gale. They passed Salmone, the Northeast corner of Crete, with difficulty, and worked round the coast to Fair Havens, a harbor somewhat to the East of Cape Matala. The great Feast fell while they were at Fair Havens; in 59 AD it was On October 5, in the middle of the season when the equinoxes made sailing impossible. Paul advised the centurion to winter in Fair Havens, but the captain wished to reach Phoenix, a harbor farther to the West, where ships from Egypt were accustomed to put in during the stormy season. It was decided to follow the captain's advice; but on its way to Phoenix the ship was struck by a Northeast wind called Euraquilo, which rushed down from Mt. Ida. The ship was carried out to sea; it managed to run under the lee of Cauda, an island 23 miles West of Cape Matala, where the crew hauled in the boat, undergirded the ship, and slackened sail. On the fourteenth night they were driven on the coast of Malta, and wrecked.
The narrative does not state that Paul landed in Crete, but as the ship lay for some time at Fair Havens (Acts 27:8,9) he had plenty of opportunity to land, but not to travel inland. The centurion gave him permission to land at Sidon. Paul left Titus in Crete (Tit 1:5); tradition made the latter its first bishop, and patron saint.
Cretans were present, as noted above, at the Feast of Pentecost (Acts 2:11). Paul's estimate of the Cretan character (Tit 1:10-16) was the one current in antiquity. Paul quotes (Tit 1:12) a well-known line of the Cretan poet Epimenides (who lived about 600 BC) on the mendacity of the Cretans. The sentiment was repeated by Callimachus (Hymn to Zeus 8). Other ancient witnesses to the detestation in which the Cretan character was held are Livy xliv.45, and Plutarch Aemilius section 23.
LITERATURE.
Smith, Voyage and Shipwreck of Paul; Ramsay, Paul the Traveler and Roman Citizen, 320-30. On Crete in Greek and Roman times, consult e.g. Grote, Holm, and Mommsen. A succinct account of the prehistoric archaeology of the island is given in Burrows, The Discoveries in Crete, and Bailkie, The Sea Kings of Crete.
W. M. Calder
('ebhuc): "Crib" translates the Hebrew word [~'ebhuc exactly, as it denotes "a barred receptacle for fodder used in cowsheds and foldyards; also in fields, for beasts lying out in the winter." The Hebrew is from a word meaning to feed ('abhac), and is used in the precise sense of the English word in Job 39:9 of the "crib" of the wild ox, in Prov 14:4, "Where no oxen are, the crib is clean," and in Isa 1:3, "The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib." section 23.
krik'-et (chargol): This occurs in Lev 11:22 (the King James Version "beetle"), and doubtless refers to some kind of locust or grasshopper.
kri'-er (qara'; compare boao):
(1) Neither is this exact word found in English Versions of the Bible, nor a word exactly corresponding to it in the Hebrew Bible, but the character it stands for appears as "one who cries aloud," i.e., proclaims mandates or gives public messages. In Prov 1:21 it is said, "She (Wisdom) crieth in the chief place of concourse." John the Baptist calls himself "the voice of one crying in the wilderness" (Jn 1:23)--like a herald going before the king.
(2) In the East today every village even has its public crier, selected for his loud or penetrating voice, and appointed to give notice of the fresh orders or mandates of the mudir ("governor") or other authorities. The muezzin of the Moslems, who at the five appointed times of prayer mounts the minaret and calls the faithful to prayer, is another striking example. Something like the ancient "heralds" of the king were the "heralds" of the Middle Ages in Europe who, preceded by trumpeters, made official proclamations:
George B. Eager
krim, krimz: This. term is used in English as the equivalent of the Hebrew mishpaT, "judgment," "verdict" (Ezek 7:23); zimmah, "a heinous crime" (Job 31:11); 'asham = "a fault," "sin" (Gen 26:10, English Versions of the Bible "guiltiness"); and Greek aitia, "case," "cause" (Acts 25:27, the Revised Version (British and American) "charges"). In the King James Version Jn 18:38; 19:4,6, the rendition is "fault."
egklema, "indictment," "charge" (Acts 25:16 the King James Version) is changed in the Revised Version (British and American) to "matter." A crime is a transgression against the public right; serious offense against the law; a base weakness or iniquity, all of which are regarded by the Bible as offenses against (1) God, or (2) man, or (3) both. An injury to the creature is regarded as obnoxious to the Creator. Specific forms of crime are the following:
Adultery.
See separate article.
Assassination.
This term does not occur in the English Versions of the Bible, but, of course, is included in the more general "to kill," or "to slay" (haragh = "to smite with deadly intent" "destroy," "kill," "murder," "put to death"). The law distinguished between unpremeditated and premeditated slaying, pronouncing a curse upon the latter (Dt 27:25). David expresses the deepest abhorrence of such an act (2 Sam 4:9-12). Instances are found recorded in Jdg 3:15-22; 2 Sam 3:27; 4:5-7; 13:28,29; 20:9,10; 2 Ki 12:20; 19:37; Isa 37:38. See also separate article.
Bestiality.
According to Webster: "unnatural connection with a beast." This form of vice was treated by the Mosaic law as something exceedingly loathsome and abhorrent, calling for extreme language in its description and rigorous measures in its punishment. Both the beast and the guilty human were to be put to death (Ex 22:19; Lev 18:23; 20:15,16; Dt 27:21), in order, as the Talmud says, to obliterate all memory of the crime.
Blasphemy.
See separate article.
Breach of Covenant.
Breach of Covenant (parar 'eth ha-berith).--According to Poucher (HDB, article "Crimes"), this term included: (1) failure to observe the Day of Atonement (Lev 23:29); work on that day (Lev 23:28); (2) sacrifice of children to Moloch (Lev 20:3); (3) neglect of circumcision (Gen 17:14; Ex 4:26); (4) unauthorized manufacture of the holy oil (Ex 30:33); (5) anointing an alien therewith (Ex 30:33); (6) neglect of the Passover (Nu 9:13). Note also the following: Gen 17:14; Lev 26:15-44; Dt 29:25; 31:16,20. Paul (Rom 1:31) speaks of asunthetoi = "Convenant--breakers."
Breach of Ritual.
A term not found in the Scriptures, but designed to cover a number of acts prohibited by the ceremonial law. They have been exhaustively enumerated by Poucher (HDB, article "Crimes"): (1) eating blood, whether of fowl or beast (Lev 7:27; 17:14); (2) eating fat of the beast of sacrifice (Lev 7:25); (3) eating leavened bread during the Passover (Ex 12:15,19); (4) failure to bring an offering when an animal is slaughtered for food (Lev 17:4); (5) offering sacrifice while the worshipper is under the ban of uncleanness. (Lev 7:20,21; 22:3,4,9); (6) making holy ointment for private use (Ex 30:32,33); (7) using the same for perfume (Ex 30:38); (8) neglect of purification in general (Nu 19:13,10); (9) slaughtering an animal for food away from the door of the tabernacle (Lev 17:4,9); even the alien must comply, so that the introduction of worship at other places might be avoided; (10) touching holy things illegally (Nu 4:16,20 the Revised Version (British and American) "the sanctuary"). The punishment for the non-observance of these prohibitions was the "cutting off" from the transgressor's people (nikhrath miqqerebh = "cut off from among," i.e. excommunicated).
Breach of Trust.
Bribery.
See separate article.
Burglary.
This term does not occur. The corresponding act is defined as "thievery accompanied by breaking," and it places the offender beyond protection from violence (Ex 22:2). The crime might be committed in various degrees, and to burglarize the "devoted things" was punishable by death (Josh 7:25), as was also man-stealing (Ex 21:16; Dt 24:7).
Debt.
See separate article.
Deception.
See separate article.
Disobedience.
See separate article.
Divination.
See separate article.
Drunkenness.
See separate article.
Evil Speaking (Slander).
See Speaking Evil.
Falsehood.
Occurs as the rendition of ma`al = "treachery," "sin," "trespass" (Job 21:34); and of sheqer = "a sham," "deceit," "lying" (2 Sam 18:13; Ps 7:14; 119:118; 144:8,11; Isa 28:15; 57:4; 59:13; Jer 10:14; 13:25; Hos 7:1; Mic 2:11). In every case willful perversion of the truth or preference for the untruth is at least presupposed, hence, falsehood always marks an evil disposition, enmity against truth, and hence, against God; consequently is criminal in the fullest sense.
False Swearing.
"Swearing to a lie or falsehood" (sheqer) is mentioned in Lev 6:3,1; 19:12; Jer 5:2; 7:9; Hos 10:4; Zec 5:4. From these passages and their context, it appears that this crime was considered in the twofold sense of a wrong against (1) the neighbor, and (2) against God, for the oath was an appeal to God as a witness to the truthfulness of the statement; hence, to swear falsely was to represent God as supporting a false statement.
Fornication.
Hebrew, zanah = "to commit adultery," especially of the female, and less frequently of mere fornication, seldom of involuntary ravishment; also used figuratively in the sense of idolatry, the Jewish people being regarded as the spouse of Yahweh (2 Ch 21:11; Isa 23:17; Ezek 16:26). Once we find the derivative noun taznuth (Ezek 16:29). In the New Testament, with both the literal and the figurative application, we find porneia, and porneuo (Mt 5:32; 15:19; Jn 8:41; Acts 15:20; 1 Cor 5:1; 6:13,18; 7:2; 10:8; 2 Cor 12:21; Gal 5:19; Eph 5:3; Col 3:5; 1 Thess 4:3; Rev 2:14,20,21; 9:21; 14:8; 17:2,4). The intensive ekporneuo = "to be utterly unchaste" is found in Jude 1:7. Every form of unchastity is included in the term "fornication."
Forswear.
Found only in Mt 5:33 in the sense of committing perjury (epiorkeo).
Harlotry.
The avocational or at least habitual, notorious practice of unchastity. In most instances the ordinary term for unchaste living, zanah, is employed (Gen 34:31; 38:15,24; Lev 21:14; Josh 2:1 (Rahab); Jdg 11:1; 16:1; 1 Ki 3:16; Prov 7:10; 29:3; Jer 5:7; Am 7:17). For the publicly known woman of the street and the professional devotee in the pagan temple-worship, the term kedheshah, was employed (Gen 38:21,22 the King James Version; Hos 4:14). The Greek porne, occurs in Mt 21:31 f; Lk 15:30; 1 Cor 6:15,16; Heb 11:31; Jas 2:25). Figurative: Often used metaphorically of idolatry or any defection from the Divine covenant, and applied particularly to Jerusalem (Isa 1:21); the Jewish nation (Jer 2:20; 3:1,6 ff; often in Ezek 16 and 23; Mic 1:7); Israel (Hos 4:15); Nineveh (Nah 3:4); Tyro, with reference to the various arts employed to renew her commerce (Isa 23:16) and to her restored traffic (Isa 23:17); and to antiChristian "Babylon" (Rev 17:5,15; 19:2). See also Fornication.
Homicide.
"Manslayer" (ratsach, "to dash in pieces," "to kill," "to murder"; Greek androphonos, with the same meaning): Mentioned in Nu 35:6,12; 1 Tim 1:9. The Hebrew law distinguished between the premeditated and the unpremeditated slaying. See separate article.
Idolatry.
See separate article.
Ill-treatment of Parents (Ex 21:15,17; Lev 20:9; Dt 21:18 ff).
See below.
Injuries to the Person (Ex 21:18 ff; Lev 24:19 f; Dt 25:11).
Irreverence.
Lack of respect for God or His natural representatives, the parents or governmental officers. See also Parents, Crimes against; Blasphemy.
Incest.
Designated in Hebrew by zimmah, "vice," "wickedness," "refined immorality" (Lev 18:17; 20:14); also "unnatural vice," tebhel, the same word that is used to designate the unnatural commingling with beasts. Amnon's deed is designated as checedh, indicating the degradation of the tenderness natural between brothers and sisters into a tenderness of an immoral character (2 Sam 13). The crime of sexual relation of persons within the degrees of relationship forbidden by the Levitical law, as for instance, that of Lot's daughters with their father (Gen 19:33); the son with his father's concubines, as for instance, Reuben (Gen 35:22), and Absalom (2 Sam 16:22; compare 1 Cor 5:1); that of the father-in-law with his daughter-in-law (Gen 38:15 ff; compare Ezek 22:11); of the brother with the sister or half-sister, as for instance, Amnon (2 Sam 13:14); of the brother-in-law with the sister-in-law (Mt 14:3); with the wife's mother, or the wife's daughter while living in apparent marriage with the mother (Lev 20:14; 18:17). Illicit relation with the brother's widow is designated (Lev 20:21 ) as a disgraceful deed, literally, "uncleanness" (excepting the levirate marriage). Such acts were forbidden on the ground that the Jews were to avoid the evil practices of the Canaanites and the Egyptians in regard to marriage within the specified limits, because this would naturally result in breaking down the sanctity of the bonds connecting near relatives, and in throwing open the flood gates of immorality among them. It is the Divine plan that the unions based on mutual choice and love, mingled with carnality, shall become clarified more and more into the purer love of close consanguineal relations; not vice versa. Then, too, such provisions would secure higher results in training and in the production of mentally and physically healthy children, the balancing and evening up of contrasts of Nature, and the production of new and improved types. The principle on which the prohibitions are imposed seems to be this: Marriage is forbidden between any person and a direct ancestor or a direct descendant or any close relative, such as brother or sister of either himself or any of his ancestors or any of his immediate descendants.
Infanticide.
This crime, in the form in which it has been and is prevalent among barbarous nations, seems to have been quite foreign to the minds of the Hebrews, for they had too lofty a conception of the value of human life, and children were considered a blessing; their absence in the home, a curse (compare Ex 1:17,21; Ps 127; 128). For this reason, there appeared to be no reason to prohibit it by law, except as the Israelites might be influenced to sacrifice their children to Molech when following the religious customs of the Canaanites.
See MOLECH .
Kidnapping (Man-Stealing).
andrapodistes = "man-stealer," "slave-dealer" (1 Tim 1:10). This was a mortal offense; but it seems that it, like some other forms of iniquity, was unknown to the Hebrews, except as they came in contact with it through their intercourse with other nations, such as the Romans and the Greeks, whose mythology frequently alludes to such acts.
Lying, Malice, Manslaughter, Murder, Oath.
See separate articles.
Parents, Crimes against.
The law enjoined upon the infant all the reverence toward his parents, especially the father, that he could bestow on a merely human being. The reason for this lay in the fact that the heads of families were expected to transmit the Divine law to their household, and thus to stand in the place of God. That the mother was to share this reverence practically on equal terms with the father is shown by the fact that each is mentioned separately whenever obedience and reverence are enjoined upon the child (Dt 5:16). As the specific crime against Yahweh consisted in blasphemy and open rebellion against the law, so the crime against parents consisted in deliberate disobedience and stubbornness (Dt 21:18). And here again both the father and the mother are directed to lay hands upon him and bring him unto the elders for punishment. How greatly such conduct was held in horror is seen in many of the Proverbs, especially 30:17. It would be hard to specify all the acts which, in view of the above, would be considered crimes against the parents, but it is evident that everything which would lower their dignity and influence or violate their sense of just recognition must be carefully avoided, as witness the curse visited upon Ham (Gen 9:20 through 27).
Perjury.
See False Swearing; Forswear above; also articleOATH .
Prophesying, False.
By reason of his position as the recognized mouthpiece of Yahweh, the prophet's word was weighty in influence; hence, to prophesy falsely was equivalent to practicing fraud publicly. Jeremiah described the condition as "wonderful and horrible," which made such things possible (5:30,31). See also Jer 23,12; 29:8,9; Ezek 21:23; Zec 10:2; Mt 7:15; 24:11,24; Mk 13:22; Lk 6:26; Acts 13:6 (Bar-Jesus); 2 Pet 2:1; 1 Jn 4:1; Rev 16:13; 19:20; 20:10. See also separate article.
Prostitution.
Hebrew and Christian morality never condoned this practice, though the Bible recognizes its existence as a fact even among God's people. The Hebrew father was forbidden (Lev 19:29) to give his daughter over to a life of shame (chalal, "to profane a person, place or thing," "to pollute"). See also Fornication, Harlotry, and Whoredom below.
Rape.
chazak = "to seize," "bind," "restrain," "conquer, "force," "ravish." The punishment for this crime was greater when the act was committed against a betrothed woman (Dt 22:25-29). See also Seduction.
Removing Landmarks.
(Dt 19:14).
See LANDMARK .
Reviling (Ex 22:28).
See Irreverence above and articleREVILE .
Robbery.
gazal = "to pluck off," "strip," "rob," "take away by force or violence"; forbidden in the law and frequently referred to as despicable (Lev 19:13; 26:22; 1 Sam 23:1; Prov 22:22; Isa 10:2,13; 17:14; Ezek 33:15; 39:10; Mal 3:8,9).
Sabbath-Breaking.
As the Hebrew Sabbath was regarded as a day of rest, all acts absolutely unnecessary were considered a violation, a "breaking" of the Sabbath, which appears sufficiently from the commandment (Ex 20:8-11); and the head of the household was held responsible for the keeping of this commandment on the part of all sojourners under his roof.
No other law gave the sophistical legalists of later Judaism so much opportunity for hair-splitting distinctions as did this. In answer to the question what labors were forbidden, they mentioned 39 specific forms of work, and then proceeded to define what constituted each particular form. But as even these definitions would not cover all possible questions, special precepts were invented. In order that one might not be caught in the midst of unfinished labors, when the Sabbath began (at sunset), certain forms of work must not be undertaken on Friday. Thus it was forbidden to fry meat, onions or eggs, if there was not sufficient time for them to be fully cooked before evening. No bread, no cakes, must be put into the oven, if there was not sufficient time remaining for their surface to brown before night.
See SABBATH .
Seduction.
ta`ah, "to dissemble," "seduce," and Ta`ah, with the same meaning; apoplanao, "to lead astray"; planao, "to go astray," "deceive," "err," "seduce"; and goes, "a wizard," "an impostor," "seducer." In all the passages in which the idea of seduction is expressed in the English the term is used not in the modern sense of a trespass against a woman's person, but in the more general and figurative sense of leading into sin generally (2 Ki 21:9; Prov 12:26 the King James Version.; Isa 19:13 the King James Version; Ezek 13:10; Mk 13:22 the King James Version; 2 Tim 3:13 the King James Version; 1 Jn 2:26 the King James Version; Rev 2:20). However, the modern English idea of the word is expressed in the law found in Ex 22:16,17.
Slander.
See separate article.
Sodomy.
See Unnatural Vice.
Speaking Evil.
"To bring an evil (ra`) name upon" (Dt 19:15; 1 Ki 22:23; Ps 34:13; 41:5; 50:19; 109:20; 140:11; Prov 15:28; 16:30). Evil speaking is considered a crime because it is simply the expression of the evil intents of the heart. This is brought out more clearly in the New Testament (Mt 7:17,18; 12:34,35; Mk 9:39; Lk 6:45). As such, evil speaking (blasphemia) is represented as entirely unworthy a Christian character (Eph 4:31; 1 Pet 4:4,14; 2 Pet 2:2,10,12; Jas 4:11; Jude 1:10); and katalaleo = "babble against," "gossip." It will be noticed from the above that evil speaking against those in authority is designated with the same word ("blasphemy") as raillery against God, they being considered God's representatives on earth.
See also EVIL-SPEAKING ;SLANDER .
Stealing.
Hebrew ganabh = "to thieve" (literal, or figurative); by implication, "to deceive," "carry away," "secretly bring," "steal away" (Gen 44:8; Ex 20:15; 21:16; 22:1; Prov 6:30; Zec 5:3; Gen 31:20,26 f; 2 Sam 15:6; 19:3; Job 27:20; Prov 9:17 ("Stolen waters are sweet"; the forbidden is attractive; compare Rom 7:7)). Greek klepto = "to filch," "steal" (Mt 6:19,20; 19:18; Jn 10:10; Rom 2:21; 13:9; Eph 4:28). See Theft.
Suicide.
No special law is found against this crime, for it is included in the prohibition against killing. Contrary to the practice and the philosophy of paganism, the act was held in deep abhorrence by the Hebrews because of the high value placed on human life. It was held inexcusable that any but the most degraded and satanic should lay hands on their own lives. Only the remorse of the damned could drive one to it, as witness Saul (1 Sam 31:4) and Judas (Mt 27:5).
Theft.
Hebrew genebhah "stealing" (concrete), "something stolen," "theft" (Ex 22:3,1); mentioned in connection with other wickedness (klope) in Mt 15:19; Mk 7:21; and (klemma) in Rev 9:21. All three words are used abstractly for the act and concretely for the thing stolen.
See THIEF .
Unchastity.
No other form of sin is mentioned with disapproval and threats more frequently than the various forms of carnal vice, for no other sin is more natural or widespread.
See CHASTITY ;LEWDNESS ;MARRIAGE .
Unnatural Vice (Sodomy).
Alluded to with delicacy, but positively condemned as an abomination (Gen 13:13; 19:5,7; Lev 18:22; 20:13). It was the specific form of wickedness through which Sodom became notorious, so that "sodomite" is the regular translation of qadhesh, "a (quasi) sacred person," i.e. (technically) "a (male or female) devotee to licentious idolatry" (Dt 23:17; 1 Ki 14:24; 15:12; 22:46; 2 Ki 23:7; Job 36:14 margin). Though permitted and even encouraged in heathen cult, it was never to be tolerated in the worship of Yahweh.
Usury.
See separate article.
Witnessing, False.
The Hebrew idiom is `edh sheqer, "witness of a falsehood," "lie" (Ex 20:16; Dt 19:16,18; Prov 6:19; 14:5,25; 19:5,9); Greek pseudomartureo, "to bring false testimony"; -marturia, "bearing of false testimony" (Mk 10:19; 14:56,57). It goes without saying that the law was emphatic in its denunciation of this practice, and in order that the innocent might be protected against the lying accuser, a criminal was to be convicted only on the testimony of at least two or three witnesses, testifying to the same facts (Nu 35:30). If one be found testifying falsely, he was to be punished by suffering the penalty which would have been inflicted on him against whom he testified, had he been convicted (Dt 19:16-19).
Whoredom.
Hebrew zanah = "to commit adultery," "fornication or illicit incontinence of any kind"; and its derivative taznuth = "fornication," "harlotry," "whoredom"; Greek porneuo (verb), and porneia (noun), of the same meaning. The following passages will reveal the estimate in which such uncleanness was held, and the fact that men and women given to it were held in equal abhorrence and designated by the same terms: Gen 38:24; Lev 19:29; Nu 14:33; 25:1; Ezek 16; 23:3,7,8,11,27,29,43; 43:7,9; Hos 1:2; 2:4; 4:11,12; 6:10; Nah 3:4; Mt 5:32; Rom 1:26 f; 1 Cor 5:1; 7:2; 10:8; Jude 1:7; Rev 2:14,20 f; 18:9; 19:2.
Figurative: Because of the infidelity to the lifemate and to right living involved in such acts, the practice became symbolical of infidelity to God and His law, and thus served as a frequent figure of speech for Israel's error and apostasy.
See HARLOT .
Frank E. Hirsch
krim'-z'-n.
See COLORS .
krip'-'-l (cholos): Only occurs in Acts 14:8, denoting the congenitally lame man at Lystra. In the King James Version (1611) the word is spelled "creeple." It originally meant one whose body is bent together as in the attitude of creeping. This was probably a case of infantile paralysis.
kris'-ping: Pins for crisping, or curling, the hair. Thus the King James Version renders Hebrew chariTim (Isa 3:22; compare Vulgate). the Revised Version (British and American) substitutes more correctly "satchels" (so Qimchi (compare 2 Ki 5:23); compare Arabic). Others think of girdles; still others of veils or head-bands.
kris'-pus (Krispos, "curled"): One of the small number baptized by Paul among the Corinthian Christians (1 Cor 1:14). He had been ruler of the Jewish synagogue, but he "believed in the Lord with all his house"; and, following Paul, withdrew from the synagogue (Acts 18:7,8). He seems to have been succeeded by Sosthenes (Acts 18:17). According to tradition he became bishop of Aegina.
(The Graf-Wellhausen Hypothesis)
LITERATURE
In Jer 7:22,23 we read: "For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices: but this thing I commanded them, saying, Hearken unto my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people." It is the contention of the present article that this statement of the prophet is correct (compare II , 5).
More specifically, it is contended that evidence can be produced from the Old Testament to show that Israel's religion can be seen in a long period of growth; and in this growth a fixed sacrificial law, with a minutely regulated ritual obligatory on all Israelites, the culmination and not the beginning of the process. It is contended, moreover, that this conception of the development of the institutional side of the religion of the Old Testament is attained by the strictest evaluation of all the Old Testament evidence and by no a priori considerations.
To be sure, one is met at once in the Old Testament by what seem to be complete denials of this point of view. In the Pentateuch we find statement after statement that a given law was due not to some late author but to Moses himself, and there are numerous passages in the historical books (most notably in Chronicles) that speak of these laws as in effect from the earliest times. Such evidence must be paid all possible respect and must be overruled only on the most imperative considerations.
However, if for the moment the books of the Old Testament be viewed only as historical documents, it will be admitted that the possibility of overruling such evidence may well arise. And it may very well arise without calling in question in the slightest degree the good faith of the writers of questioned passages; for an acquisition of historical perspective comes very late in intellectual evolution, particularly--though not only--in the realm of religious history. Even the trained scholar has to be on his guard lest he read back the concepts of his own time into some past generation, while the non-specialist never succeeds in avoiding this error completely. For the uncultured mind, especially for the Oriental, the problem scarcely exists. That which is generally accepted and which is not obviously novel tends to be classified as that which "always has been." A law so old that its actual source is forgotten is referred as a matter of course to some great lawgiver of the past. A custom that in a writer's own day is universally observed by the pious must always have been observed by the pious. Even documentary evidence to the contrary is not convincing to such a writer, for that documents may be wrong is not a modern discovery. To be sure, the older document may be copied mechanically or the discrepancy may not even be noticed. But it is never surprising when we find a writer simply accrediting the pious men of old with the customs of his own day, since even documentary evidence to the contrary he felt could not be right. This is not forgery, as we understand the word, nor need there be the faintest moral reproach connected with such conduct. Quite on the contrary, such a writer may well be acting in the only sense that the conscience of any man of his generation could conceive right.
However, the Old Testament is not a mere collection of human documents, and another question arises. Does the acceptance of inspiration compel us to assume that in every case a writer's ordinary historical methods were entirely overruled? The question is a rather broad one and does not relate merely to the correct transmission of historic facts. To be asked, rather, is this: Did God present to His instruments a mechanically accurate set of past facts which would give a conception of history that no one of the sacred writer's generation could understand? Or did He suffer His revelation to find expression in terms of the current conceptions of history, much as we are accustomed to say it found expression in terms of the current conceptions of science? A full discussion of the various theological arguments involved would be quite outside the province of an article of this Encyclopedia, but reference must be made to two important Biblical arguments: (1) In a question which thus affects the amount covered by the inspiration of the Bible, quotations from the Bible itself beg the question when adduced to show entire infallibility. So appeals to the New Testament are hardly helpful. Moreover, they prove too much. In Jude 1:14,15 there is a quotation from the Book of Enoch (1:9), which is made in the most formal manner possible. But will anyone maintain that this compels us to believe that our Book of Enoch was actually written by Enoch, the seventh from Adam? Yet if the quotation had been taken from an Old Testament work, precisely this would have been maintained. (2) Far more important is the use of the Old Testament by Christ, for here a quite different authority comes in. But the question must be asked: Just how far did our Lord's use of a passage involve ratification of all the current ideas about that passage? A good answer is supplied by Acts 1:6,7. When He is asked, "Dost thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" we know that the pedantically "correct" answer would have been, "The kingdom never will be restored to Israel in any such sense as ye conceive of it." Yet this is precisely what Christ does not say. "It is not for you to know times or seasons." No hint was given at all that the kingdom was universal, for the disciples would find that out for themselves in good time. In order that they should be able to do God's work there was no need to bewilder them with a truth as yet altogether revolutionary. And any close student of the "Kingdom of God" passages soon realizes how often Christ uses current terminology without comment, even when it seems almost materialistic. A literal exegesis of Lk 22:18 would necessitate believing that grapes will grow in the world to come and that Christ will drink wine made from them, and almost certainly the disciples gathered just this idea from the words. But no one today finds them in the least a difficulty. The exact extent of the kingdom and the exact nature of the happiness in it were irrelevant to what the disciples had to do. And so it cannot be thought an injustice to treat Christ's use of the Old Testament by exactly the same rules, all the more as nowhere, not even in Mk 12:36, does the argument turn on the original human author or the date of writing. What Christ Himself, in His inner consciousness, knew on the subject is something beyond our immediate data. But His use of the Old Testament lends no support to a Kenotic theory, not even on the wildest Old Testament critical hypotheses.
See KENOSIS .
As is well known, among the laws of the Pentateuch there exist several well-marked groups, of which the most formal is Dt 12 through 26.
Another such group is Lev 17 through 26 or the Holiness Code (H), and still another is Ex 20:22 through 23:19 or the Covenant Code (CC). With this last is closely connected the Decalogue and the little compend Ex 34:17-26. Now it will be convenient for present purposes to designate the remaining mass of Pentateuchal legislation under the non-committal symbol X.
In the first place, attention may be directed to Covenant Code as a whole. Whatever it was meant to be, it was not meant as a mere interims code for the period of the wanderings, either in its civil or its religious prescriptions. One piece of evidence alone is enough to show the contrary: in the laws touching settlements of disputes it is presupposed that Moses himself is not accessible. And the life assumed is agricultural. Men are living in fields with settled boundaries (Ex 22:5,6). The vine and the olive are both under cultivation (Ex 22:5,29; 23:11), under such settled circumstances that the rest of the Sabbatical year can be observed. And of the feasts, Weeks and Tabernacles are connected with the harvests (Ex 23:16). Of course, Moses may very well have given commands that looked to the future, but the present contention is simply that it was the remote and not the immediate future that is in point on this assumption. The life is Canaan and not the wilderness. But, now, the life is very primitive life. Flocks are of great importance, as is shown by the proportion of space given to laws about them. Rulers are mentioned only in Ex 22:28 (nasi'), and judges, as settled officers, are not mentioned at all, for the very rare word in 21:22 (palil, Dt 32:31; Job 31:11 only) should be translated "umpire." Indeed in Ex 23:1-9 the duties of citizens, witness and judge are so intermingled as to suggest that judgment was administered by a general gathering of the people. It is taken for granted that a master has marital rights over his maidservants (21:7-11). Coined money is mentioned only in 21:32, if there. There is no attempt to define proportions exactly; compare 22:5 ("best of his own field") and 22:29 (the amount of the gift--a tenth?--not stated). Similarly there is no precise dating of the feasts of Weeks and Tabernacles in 23:16, while the exact day in Abib (23:15) is at least not specified. Now, if this code could be isolated from the rest of the legislation, would not one refer it naturally on the above grounds alone to a time not very far either way from that of Saul?
Now, in what follows, the prescriptions of the various codes will be compared with each other in regard to the various institutions of Israel's religion and also studied in the wider evidence of the historical books. The evidence of Chronicles, however, will be omitted for the most part, as a separate section is devoted to it (III, 1).
3 The Sanctuary:
(1) The firstling is to be with its dam seven days, but on the eighth (not later!) it is to be given to God. The offerings from the harvest and from the presses (wine and olives) are to be offered without delay (Ex 22:29,30). Consequently the place of offering must have been readily accessible. By what has been said above and by the mention of "presses" here, ready accessibility in Palestine is presupposed. But this implies a multiplicity of sanctuaries. And in Samuel-Kings this multiplicity of sanctuaries is exactly what is found. Samuel sacrifices in Mizpah (1 Sam 7:9), in Ramah (9:12 ff), in Gilgal (11:15) and in Bethlehem (16:5). David's family held a yearly sacrifice in Bethlehem, which David attended regularly (1 Sam 20:6). Solomon received a special revelation from God at Gibeon (1 Ki 3:4 ff--for the account in Chronicles see III , 1). Although the heart of Asa was perfect and the way of Jehoshaphat right, yet the many altars were suffered to remain (1 Ki 15:14; 22:43--again for Chronicles see III , 1). The destruction of the altars of God was to Elijah a terrible calamity (1 Ki 19:10). While Amos and Hosea abound in denunciations of sacrifices as substitutes for righteousness, yet they never even intimate a duty to offer sacrifices in some other place (Am 1:2; Hos 3:5 are irrelevant). Not even do Mic 4:2 and Isa 2:2 imply that Jerusalem was to have the sole right to the cult.
(2) Ezekiel is the first prophet who makes the place of sacrifice a matter of paramount importance, and this importance of the place is, in the Pentateuch, emphasized primarily in Deuteronomy. It is needless to collect the familiar evidence from Deuteronomy, but an illuminating comparison with Covenant Code is given by the laws for firstlings. No longer is the firstling given on the eighth day. It must be kept, but not worked or shorn, until the time when "year by year" it may be eaten in the chosen place (Dt 15:19,20). So now the fruits of the field and the "presses" are not offered "without delay" but again "year by year," with a provision for turning them into money if the way be too long to the sanctuary (Dt 14:22-27). Deuteronomy and Covenant Code evidently have distinct conceptions--and again attention may be called to the fact that Covenant Code contains laws for Palestine, not for the wilderness. The Law of Holiness (H), Lev 17 through 26, is as explicit as Deuteronomy--sacrifice anywhere except at the Tent is a capital offense (Lev 17:8,9). And the evidence of X need not be collected, but, passing out of the Pentateuch for the moment, Josh 22:10-34 represents Israel as understanding from the first entrance into Canaan that sacrifice at any altar but the one was the worst of crimes.
(3) How is the offering of sacrifices in various places by such men as Samuel to be explained? That the worship was disorganized and the proper sanctuary could not be reached is hardly an explanation. For no disorganization of the country could be great enough to justify the offering of sacrifices in places not only unauthorized but flatly forbidden in Lev 17:8,9. On theory of Mosaic origin for the whole of the Pentateuchal legislation, Samuel knew as much about the clear statements of the Law as does any Jew of today, but it is clearly enough recognized by all Jews that no disorganization of the county or Divine reprobation of the Temple justifies sacrifice in any other place. A key, however, seems to be found in Dt 12:8-11, where sacrifice in various places is actually authorized until such a time as the land should be pacified and the Divine choice given to a place--a time represented in the history of Israel as about the time of David, or perhaps Solomon. This certainly does explain the situation as it is found in Samuel-Kings. Only, it is in flat contradiction with H and X.
This point is important. Dt 12:8-11 not only represents sacrifice in various places as permitted until some later time, but it represents Moses and the Israelites as practicing the same things in the wilderness--"the things that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes; for ye are not as yet come," etc.; i.e. Deuteronomy's conception was that in the wilderness Moses and the Israelites offered sacrifice wherever they thought good. This was to continue until God gave them rest from their enemies round about. Then the sacrifices were to be brought to the chosen place and to be offered nowhere else. Now, the conception in H and X is wholly different. On the mount Moses received directions for the building of the Tabernacle, with its altar. From the beginning it was a capital offense to offer sacrifices on any other altar than this (Lev 17:8,9), which was carried everywhere on the wanderings and brought into Canaan. In the very days of Phinehas, the offering of sacrifices on a different altar was enough to make civil war justifiable (Josh 22:12). For further discussion see III , 2.
(4) The difficulties of these data are obvious but are completely satisfied by the assumption that different conceptions of past history are present. Deuteronomy belongs to a period when the unity of the sanctuary had become an established fact, but still before the memory of the many altars as comparatively legitimate was extinguished. H and X, however, belong to a considerably later day, when the unity of the sanctuary had been so long taken for granted that no pious Israelite could conceive that anything else had ever existed. The reference of the commands to Moses is altogether in oriental manner.
NOTE.--Ex 20:24 has not been used in the above argument, but with the evidence presented there seems to be no obstacle to the translations of the EV. The familiar evidence of Judges is of course merely cumulative.
Lev 1 through 7 contains a list of the various kinds of sacrifices:
(a) the sin offering and the trespass offering, very elaborately treated and obviously of the highest importance; (b) the whole burnt offering and the peace offering; and, standing a little by itself, the meal offering. The latter is of no especial significance for the present discussion and may be neglected. Now a curious fact may be noted. In the prophetic writings before Ezekiel there is not one single reference to class (a). This is not simply the argument from silence, for sacrifices with their special names are mentioned freely and sacrificial rites described--invariably of class (b), even when presented for penitential purposes. If the offering is not burnt whole, the worshipper eats of it--it is a peace offering. Jer 7:21 is a particularly significant example, but compare Am 4:4,5; 5:22,25; Hos 8:13; 9:4; Isa 1:11; 22:12-14; 28:7,8; Jer 6:20. Turning to Samuel-Kings we find this borne out. The names of the sin and trespass offerings appear in 2 Ki 12:16, but it is money that is referred to (the English Versions of the Bible should be checked with the Hebrew here), just as the golden mice appear as a trespass offering in 1 Sam 6:3 ff. And in the codes, neither Covenant Code nor Deuteronomy mentions class (a) and even in H they appear only in Lev 19:21,22; i.e. what in later times appear as the greatest sacrifices of Israel--by Lev 8 Israel's first sacrifice was a sin offering--are found only in X and are mentioned in the prophets for the first time in Ezek 40:39, while the other classes are mentioned frequently. It seems difficult to escape the inference that class (a) appeared relatively late in Israel's history, a point discussed more fully in IV.
The problem presented by Jer 7:22 is a very serious one. Obviously, to say that the command to offer sacrifice was not given on the day of the Exodus but on Sinai, is quite unsatisfactory, for this would make Jeremiah quibble. He denies categorically that a command to offer sacrifice was part of the Divine Law at all. Now, if it be noted that the offering of firstlings and first-fruits was altogether distinct from the regular sacrifices, it will be seen that Jer can very well presuppose Covenant Code or even Deuteronomy, both of which contain only regulative prescriptions for sacrifice. (Whether Jeremiah actually did conceive Covenant Code and Deuteronomy as binding is another question.) But by what exegesis of the passage can Jeremiah pre-suppose X? The natural inference is that the regulations of X became obligatory on Israel after Jeremiah's day.
What follows is in itself an infinitesimal matter but the evidence is significant. The prohibition of steps for the altar in Ex 20:26 is based on the fact that the ministrants were very scantily clad (compare the light clothing of pilgrims at Mecca). This is corroborated in 2 Sam 6:14,20-22, where Michal reproves David for exposing himself. But in X the priests wear rather elaborate vestments, over linen breeches (Ex 28:42). And, to call in Chronicles for the moment, this is the conception found there of David's religious zeal at the bringing in of the ark. Besides the ephod he wears a long linen robe and Michal despises him, not for exposing himself, but only for dancing (1 Ch 15:27-29).
(1) Covenant Code has no regulations regarding the priesthood, but of course it does not follow that this silence has any significance. However, Samuel-Kings furnish us with certain evidence. Samuel, although an Ephraimite (1 Sam 1:1), offers sacrifice repeatedly (see 3, above). In 2 Sam 20:25,26 the Hebrew says that Zadok and Abiathar were kohanim, and also Ira the Jairite was kohen unto David. Exactly the same word is used for Zadok and Ira in practically the same sentence, and no one without prior conceptions would have dreamed of giving it entirely distinct translations under the circumstances, as do the King James Version and the Revised Version texts (not margins). Again in 2 Sam 8:18 it is said that David's sons were kohanim and in 1 Ki 4:5 that Zabud was kohen. Now if kohen does not mean "priest" in these passages, they are the only cases out of a total of 750 occurrences. That the Chronicler understood the word to mean priest is shown by the fact that in his parallel to 2 Sam 8:18 (1 Ch 18:17) he uses a different word altogether. The natural inference from these passages is that the restriction of priestly ministration to a certain line came about after Solomon's time (compare Jdg 17:12,13, a Levite is desirable but not essential).
(2) In Deuteronomy the priesthood appears as limited to the sons of Levi, but it is at least safe to say that no explicit distinction is made within the tribe. In 21:5 the priests are the "sons of Levi," just as in 17:9; 18:1; 24:8 the term is "the priests the Levites." In 10:8 the right to bless and in 33:8-11 the right to offer incense and sacrifice are in no ways said to be restricted to a very small proportion of the tribe. Compare Jer 33:21,22 (here questions of authenticity are irrelevant). A clear distinction within the tribe of Levi appears in the prophetic writings for the first time in Ezek 44:10-31, where two kinds of Levites are spoken of, "the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok" (verse 15) and the Levites, simply (verse 10). No third class is recognized (compare Ezek 40:45,46, where the distinction is between two classes of priests). Now, the distinction between the Zadokian and non-Zadokian Levites is based by Ezekiel on one thing only, in the past the former had been faithful and the latter had not (Ezek 44:10-15). Because the former had ministered before idols, therefore should they not come to execute the office of a priest, but perform only inferior ministrations. Now this can mean only that the non-Zadokians are excluded from priestly privileges that they once possessed. The non-Zadokians, if they had not sinned, would still have been legitimate priests in Ezekiel's eyes, for otherwise the exclusion from the altar would be eviscerated of all meaning as a punishment; i.e. Ezekiel knows of only two kinds of Levites, both kinds originally legitimate priests, but one class now to be forbidden access to the altar because of sin. A third class of Levite, non-Aaronites, who never had had access to the altar, but who, because of their righteousness, had been blessed with the privilege to perform minor ministerial acts, is conspicuous in Ezekiel by its absence. And this absence, in the face of the immense amount of minute detail contained in Ezek 40 through 48, can be explained on no other hypothesis than that Ezekiel did not know of such a class. When the immense importance of the non-Aaronite Levites in Chronicles, Ezra, etc., is thought of, what other explanation can be given for their omission in Ezekiel's elaborate regulations for the cult? To whom did Ezekiel consider the more menial work in the Temple would have fallen if the non-Zadokians had not sinned? Probably he never raised the question at all, but there is no objection to supposing that he would have assigned it to the priesthood as a whole.
(3) It is needless to collect the evidence of X. The non-Aaronite Levites appear there as ministers of the greatest importance, elaborately set apart, and with their duties and privileges accurately defined (Nu 8, especially). Now, it is submitted that this evidence points in its most natural interpretation to a gradual narrowing of the priestly privileges in Israel through a period of many centuries. It is natural, though by no means necessary, to identify the non-Zadokians of Ezekiel with the non-Aaronites of X. At all events it is argued that in course of time, long after the priesthood had become restricted to Levites only, a considerable proportion of the latter lost their priestly privilege. Ezekiel stood near enough to the change (that he was the actual innovator is improbable) to state the fact of the degradation and its cause. X regarded the distinction as of such long standing that it must be accredited to Moses himself. It is highly probable that evidence of the change is to be found in Dt 18:6-8, but this will not be pressed here.
(1) In Covenant Code first-fruits are to be offered in Ex 23:19 and a portion (perhaps a tenth, but not specified as such) of the whole harvest in 22:29. Nothing is said about their disposition. In Deuteronomy, the first-fruits of grain, wine and oil (with fleece) belong to the "priests the Levites" (18:4). And the basket of "fruit" in the beautiful rite of 26:1-11 probably had the same destination. Of the general harvest the tithe is to be dedicated, as explained at length in 14:22-29. The worshipper is to eat it himself, but shall take care to see that the Levite receives a portion. Every third year, however, the tithe is to be spent for the benefit of all who need charity, including the Levite. Note that in either case the Levite receives only a part of the tithe. In X the first-fruits are again assigned to the clergy (but now specifically to the priests--Nu 18:12,13). But it appears that the tithe is to be given wholly to the Levites in Nu 18:21-24. The contradiction with Dt 14:22-29 is real. That two tithes were to be paid by the worshipper may safely be assumed as impossible, as a tax of one-fifth would have been unendurable. (It may be noted, though, that in later days the very pious took this interpretation--compare Tobit 1:7--but it is certain that no such ruling ever maintained generally.) An alternative explanation offered is that it could be assumed that the Levite would invite the worshipper to join in a feast on the tithe. Frankly, it is difficult to treat this as quite candid. In Deuteronomy the worshipper is anything rather than a mere guest at another man's banquet. When the tithe has been brought as money, the worshipper is to spend it on anything that best pleases him, and of the Levite it is said only "thou shalt not forsake him." Moreover, the tithe is to be consumed at the sanctuary and nowhere else (Dt 14:23; compare 12:11). In Nu 18, however, the tithe becomes the exclusive property of the Levite and it is assigned him as his source of income (verses 25-32) and so exclusively is it his that it in turn is tithed. And, far from being turned into a feast at which the worshipper shares, it need not be consumed at the sanctuary at all but may be eaten in "every place," wherever the Levite and his family may happen to live (verse 31). It would be hard to conceive of two rules more mutually exclusive than the tithe directions in Deuteronomy and Numbers. That the livelihood provided for the Levites in Deuteronomy is pitiful is hardly in point and at all events he received more than did the widow and the orphan. But compare IV .
(2) Firstlings in Covenant Code must be offered on the eighth day (Ex 22:30), but in Dt 15:19-22 they were preserved, without being worked or shorn, until "year by year" they could be taken up to the sanctuary. (Apparently by 14:23-25 it might be converted into money in case of great distance.) Here the worshipper was to offer it and eat of it (a peace offering). But in Nu 18:15-18 the firstling becomes the personal property of the priest and he receives the flesh of the animal, if it can be sacrificed (i.e. it is his peace offering, not the worshipper's). There is no question of giving back a portion to the worshipper, again. Note, moreover, that in Dt 15:21-23, an animal not fit for sacrifice was eaten at home by the worshipper and so did not come in contact with the priest at all; contrast Nu 18:15.
(3) A minor matter is found in the portion of the peace offering that went to the priest. In Dt 18:3 it is specified as the shoulder, two cheeks and maw. In X (Ex 29:26-28, etc.) this has become the breast and the right thigh--a considerably more advantageous portion.
(4) In Dt it is laid down that a Levite has no inheritance among his brethren (10:9; 12:12; 18:1) and hence, is recommended as an object of charity, like the widow and the orphan. And, like the widow and the orphan, he lives "within thy gates" (12:12, etc.), i.e. in the same cities as the rest of the Israelites. Now in X the adjurations to charity disappear, because he receives a fixed income (from the tithe), but it is said that this tithe is given the Levites in lieu of an inheritance, "Among the children of Israel they shall have no inheritance" (Nu 18:21-24), In another part of X, however, there is still a different conception--the Levites receive no less than forty-eight cities with ample "suburbs," expressly said to be given them "from the inheritance" of Israel (Nu 35:1-8). So in Lev 25:32-34 the houses of the Levites are "their possession among the children of Israel," and the fields "their perpetual possession" and inalienable. Is there any natural explanation of these passages except that they represent increasing efforts to provide properly for the Levites as time went on? That the different rules represent advances within Moses' own period cannot be taken seriously, especially as on this hypothesis the Dt laws would have been the latest. See, in addition, III.
(1) Covenant Code and Dt have little mention of coined money and little attempt to define fractions exactly. Contrast the elaborate regulations of, e.g. Lev 27. It is not contended that the Israelites could not have had enough culture in Moses' day to calculate so accurately, but attention must be drawn to the extreme contrast.
(2) In Covenant Code (Ex 23:16) the year begins in the fall, in H (Lev 23:5) and X (Ex 12:2; Nu 9:5; 28:16) it begins in the spring.
(3) Dt 16:3 explains the use of unleavened bread at the Passover as due to the haste with which the Israelites left Egypt (as in Ex 12:39), while Ex 12:15-20 makes this use depend on the positive command of God before the first-born were slain. And note that, in Ex 12:18-20 is a simple repetition of 12:15-17 with a more precise dating added. For this matter of dating compare the rough statements of Covenant Code with the exactness of Lev 23.
(4) In Covenant Code marital rights of the master over his maidservants are taken for granted (Ex 21:7-11); in Dt (15:17) the maidservant has the same privilege of release as the manservant, with the evident assumption that slavery does not confer marital rights on the master. (It is of course gratuitous to assume that two different kinds of maidservants are meant, particularly as in both cases the maidservant is contrasted in general with the manservant in general.) Note, moreover, that in Ex 20:17 "wife" follows "house" in the prohibition against coveting, while in Dt 5:21 "wife" precedes "house" and a different verb is used. The inference is natural that between Covenant Code and Dt woman, both as slave and as wife, had risen to a higher position.
(5) In both Covenant Code (Ex 21:6) and Dt (15:17) life-long slavery is permitted, if the slave desires it, otherwise the slave is free at the end of the sixth year. In H (Lev 25:39-43), the slave serves until the Jubilee year and then goes free absolutely.
Now, it is not claimed that all the discrepancies in the above lists are incapable of reconciliation, although the examples chosen are among those where reconciliation is extremely difficult. The claim is made, however, that all of this evidence is cumulative and that each successive item points more and more forcibly toward a single conclusion--that in the legislation of the Pentateuch, especially when considered in connection with the Prophets and with Samuel-Kings, there have been incorporated laws belonging to very different periods. And, for the most part, a development from the simple to the highly organized can be traced. And this conclusion explains all the facts.
The above examples have been chosen as those where no changes in the text need be made. Of the other instances, only one need be considered--Lev 17. On its surface, this chapter appears to refer solely to life in the wilderness. But in 17:8,10,12,13,15 it appears that living in the midst of the Israelites are settled non-Israelites. And the "open field" of 17:5 is a contrast to city, not to tent, life. Now in 17:3-5 the question is not at all idolatry but eating of blood at an ordinary meal. An exact commentary is found on this in 1 Sam 14:32-35, where the Israelites sin in eating the blood of animals "slain on the ground"; i.e. in both Lev 17 and 1 Sam 14, at every slaying of an animal for food, some formal disposition of the blood had to be made. In Lev 17:4 this is sacrificial, and the appearance of the altar in 1 Sam 14:35 points in the same direction. Now this investing of every slaying of an animal with a sacrificial character, explains the permission of Dt 12:20-25 to eat flesh "after all the desire of thy soul," a permission inexplicable unless there had been an earlier contrary practice. It is to be noted, moreover, that in Dt 12:16 the blood is to be disposed of by pouring it on the earth, the practice condemned in 1 Sam 14:32. The conclusion is that before the legislation of Deuteronomy the Israelite offered the blood of every slain sacrificial animal at the local sanctuary. Deuteronomy's rigid enforcement of the one sanctuary made this impossible, and so permission was given to eat flesh at home, provided the blood was not eaten, and provided that it was disposed of in a non-sacrificial way. Now in Lev 17:3-5 it becomes clear what has happened. The passage read originally something like this: `What man soever there be of the house of Israel, that killeth an ox, or lamb, or goat, and hath not brought it to offer it as an oblation unto Yahweh, blood shall be imputed unto that man. ....' This offering was to take place at the local sanctuary. But when the passage was incorporated into the whole body of the legislation, the editor was working at a time when the legitimacy of the local sanctuaries had long been forgotten. And so references to the "camp" and "the tent of meeting" were inserted, in accordance with the only laws that the editor conceived could ever have prevailed. The discrepancies with 17:5,8, etc., were probably not observed.
It is to be understood that this passage is not used as presenting a basic argument for the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis. But it is cited as an example of other passages where the text is to be considered. And, also, because the assertion is made that this particular passage is a death-blow to the "critical" hypothesis. Naturally, it is nothing of the sort.
It may be said at the outset that many of the attacks on the historic value of Chronicles have been very gravely exaggerated. But, none the less, a close comparison with Samuel-Kings shows that the Chronicler has most certainly read back into history the religious institutions of his own late day--it need not be said, with perfect innocence and sincerity. For instance, in comparing 2 Ki 11:4 with 2 Ch 23:2-6, we find the statement of Kings that Jehoiada brought captains of the Carites and of the guard into the house of Yahweh quite altered. In Chronicles Jehoiada summons Levites and heads of houses, with the express provision that only Levites shall enter into the house of Yahweh. So holy a priest as Jehoiada could not have acted as Kings says he did act. Similarly, the statement in 1 Ki 15:14 that Asa did not remove the high places is changed into the statement that he did remove the high places (2 Ch 14:3-5), and only those in (northern) Israel were left (15:17). So did Jehoshaphat (17:6), although in 20:33 the explicit statement to the contrary is copied (unnoticed?) from 1 Ki 22:43. Such righteous kings must have enforced the single sanctuary. The almost trivial matter of David's garb when the ark was brought into Jerusalem (contrast 2 Sam 6:20-22 with 1 Ch 15:27-29) has been noticed already in II, 6. The important matter in Chronicles, however, is the history of the Tabernacle. In 1 Ch 16:39-42 the Tabernacle is at Gibeon, with the full ministry surrounding it, with the exception of a detail left before the Ark in Jerusalem (compare 9:17-32). And in 2 Ch 5:5 it is brought up to Jerusalem, although the disposition made of it is not explained. Otherwise it is mentioned in 1 Ch 6:48; 21:29; 2 Ch 1:3. But the narrative presents some serious difficulties. Why did David build a special tent for the Ark in Jerusalem (1 Ch 16:1), if the one Divinely appointed covering for the Ark was still standing--not to be brought to Jerusalem until its utility was past (2 Ch 5:5)? That it was too fragile to be moved can hardly be taken seriously. In the first place, this explanation is without the least support in the text. And, in the second place, it is incredible for such a solid structure of wood, silver and brass, however much repair the curtains might have needed. Moreover, this explanation will not do at all for Bezalel's brazen altar, which was still quite usable in 2 Ch 1:5, making the construction of a new altar (4:1) altogether inexplicable. The impression is created at once that the Chronicler has injected the Tabernacle into a narrative that knew nothing of it. This is corroborated by 1 Ch 21:29,30; the altar at the floor of Ornan is explained by the difficulty of reaching the Tabernacle. But the Ark, the natural means for an inquiry of God, was in Jerusalem, with an altar by it (16:1)--why this third altar on the threshing-floor? The inaccessibility of the Tabernacle is invoked here only to solve what was a difficulty to the Chronicler. Now if 2 Ch 1:3 be compared with 1 Ki 3:2-4, the key of the whole is discovered. Kings not only does not mention the presence of the Tabernacle at Gibeon, but excludes it. Solomon's sacrificing at Gibeon is explained by saying that such was the custom of all Israel, who sacrificed in high places before the Temple was built; Solomon also sacrificed in highplaces and Gibeon was a great high-place. This is an apology for Solomon's conduct--why should the editor of Kings have apologized for sacrifice offered at the Divinely appointed Tabernacle? The Chronicler, however, could not believe that God blessed Solomon when offering sacrifice in a way forbidden by the law of Chronicle's times, and hence, he solves the difficulty by bringing in something that is unknown to the narrative in Kings.
Indeed, Kings mentions the Tabernacle only in 1 Ki 8:4. Samuel mentions the Tabernacle as such only in 1 Sam 2:22. Jdg does not mention the Tabernacle at all (18:31 is the only possibility and the word there is "house"). Now 1 Sam 2:22 is not found in the Vatican Septuagint, and the description of the Tabernacle as a tent contradicts 1:9; 3:15, where it appears as a temple or house. So it must be dropped as a gloss. Nor will it be denied that 1 Ki 8:4 looks suspiciously like a gloss as well, particularly in view of the presence of Levites there, who are practically unmentioned elsewhere in Samuel-Kings. At all events, there are only these two possible mentions of what should have been the center of Israel's worship in all of Judges-Samuel-Kings. This is not the ordinary argument from silence, it is silent about what should have been the most vital matter of all. Deuteronomy knows nothing of the Tabernacle, and, as has already been shown in II, states as clearly as language only can that in the wilderness the centralization of worship was not observed. The argument from silence alone would be conclusive here, for how could the author of Dt in his passionate advocacy of the single sanctuary fail to appeal to the single sanctuary already established by God's decree, if he knew anything about it? But not only is there no such mention in Deuteronomy but a positive exclusion of such a sanctuary in express terms. The case would seem to be complete. The Tabernacle of X and Chronicles is an ideal structure projected back into the past, just as the temple of Ezekiel is an ideal structure projected into the future. And it is needless to appeal to the familiar argument that the Tabernacle of Ex 26 would have been blown to pieces by the first storm. It had no provision for tent poles deeply sunk, which alone could resist the blasts of the desert.
It is impossible in the space of the present article to enter into all the corroborative evidence, but a
very few important arguments may be mentioned.
Simple people tend most naturally to think of heroes of the past as more and more glorious as time passes. Now Jdg 1 describes the conquest of Canaan as a slow and laborious process after Joshua's death. But in Josh 10:40-43; 11:10-23; 21:43-45--especially 11:16-19--Canaan was completely swept of its inhabitants by Joshua in a series of annihilatory campaigns, making Jdg 1 quite impossible. Evidently the Joshua passages cited belong to a very much later conception of the past history. The fate of Hebron is especially interesting. In Jdg 1:20 Caleb takes Hebron after Joshua's death. But in Josh 15 Caleb takes Hebron during Joshua's lifetime and at the latter's direction. In Josh 10:36,37, however, Joshua takes Hebron personally and annihilates its inhabitants. Here are three distinct conceptions of Hebron's fate, again. But still a fourth is found in Josh 21:11,12: it was not Caleb who received the city but the Levites. This evidently belongs to the time when the Levitical right to cities had become a commonplace, and was therefore referred to the earliest days. The accounts of the annihilation of the Canaanites arose naturally enough. Accordings to Judges the conquest was gradual and merciful. But the Canaanites seduced Israel to idolatry repeatedly. Therefore they should have been routed out (Dt 20:16-18). But Joshua was righteous and had all power. Therefore he must have rooted them out. How they suddenly reappeared again was a question that was not raised. But perhaps it may be thought a relief to understand that the ruthless campaigns of the Israelites are due to reflection and not to descriptions of what actually happened.
Simple people think of God quite naturally and reverently as a greater man. So in Ex 24:9-11 we read that Moses and many others met God in the mount, they all saw Him. and ate and drank before Him. A slightly more refined point of view is in Ex 33:11, where Moses (but no one else) sees God face to face, and Nu 12:8, where again he (alone) sees the form of God. But in Ex 33:20 no man, not even Moses, can see God face to face. In Dt 4:11-15 it is laid down that only darkness was seen--"ye saw no form." Perhaps Moses was thought of as an exception, but the contradiction of the concept that conceived over seventy Israelites besides Moses to have seen God is complete.
The reading back of an official priesthood into the time of Moses can be seen in certain passages where Aaron appears predominantly. Contrast, e.g. Ex 8:20-24; 15:23-26; 17:1-7 with 7:1-19; 16:9,10; Nu 20:2-13. Yet despite the importance of Aaron in the latter passages, in Ex 33:11 the minister of Moses in the Tent is Joshua, who is not a priest at all. Contrast similarly Dt 31:14,15 with Nu 27:18-21, noting how Eleazar appears in the latter passage, although the former excludes him. At the time of X it was not thought possible that Moses could have acted without the official mediation of the official priest.
Reasons of space preclude a further discussion of the other arguments here, such as the linguistic. As a matter of fact, the sections that contain the more developed concepts contain also a different vocabulary. To be repeated, however, is the fact that the argument is cumulative and that a single explanation of the differences is offered in the hypothesis of very varying dates for the various portions. Of course an exact analysis of every verse and a rigorous reconstruction of every source is not claimed to be possible. Many scholars have been carried by their enthusiasm for analysis into making preposterous dissections. But the principal lines of division are sufficiently clear. And it may be hoped the reader will not think that the acceptance of them has been dictated by any motive except that of facing the truth--least of all by any motive of a weakened faith in the power of God or a suspicion of the miraculous.
Israel came into Canaan, after having received through the mediation of Moses a covenant relation with God and (almost certainly) some accompanying legislation. But this legislation seems not to have prescribed the ritual form that the worship of God was to take. In part, old forms were simply continued and in part new forms were gradually developed or appropriated, the emphasis of the Law at that time being on the moral and the ritual being left quite free. In especial, sacrifices were offered wherever Israelites happened to live, doubtless frequently at former Canaanite sanctuaries, now rededicated to Yahweh. The local sanctuary was the center of the life. Men went thither to learn God's will and to give a religious character to what we should call purely secular transactions (contracts, etc.). Firstlings were offered there on the eighth day, first-fruits at once, every meal of flesh food was given a sacrificial character (peace offering), and, for more solemn purposes, the whole burnt offering was offered. So the local sanctuary corresponded to our "village church"; it was the religious home of the people. Certain of these sanctuaries had an especial dignity, above all Shiloh, where the Ark was. Later, when a united Israel had been realized, David brought the Ark to Jerusalem that the national capital might become the center of the national religious life as well, and Solomon enshrined the Ark in the Temple. So to Jerusalem there resorted naturally the best of Israel's religious leaders, and there the worship of God would be found in its purest form, normally speaking.
As time went on, the progress of culture and the freer contact with other nations had bad effects as well as good. New and degrading religious practices flowed into the country and they revived old but equally degrading religious practices that had survived from the Canaanites. The priesthood at Jerusalem did not escape a taint, but the place where such rites gained the readiest foothold was of course the obscure local sanctuaries. Not the best-minded king or the most zealous prophet, could watch all the services at them all, and attempts at purging them of idolatry or idolatrous rites (Elijah, Jehu, etc.) could not effect permanent improvement. And it could not have been very long after David's own day that the idea must have begun to grow that complete prohibition of country sacrifices and the rigid centralization of everything at Jerusalem was the only measure possible. This would soon become a fixed conviction of the better class of the Jerusalem priesthood and in a few generations would be a tradition. Detailed precepts to carry this tradition into effect arose necessarily and in turn became a tradition and in course of time were regarded as Moses' work and committed to writing. In this way the legislation of Dt took form and at the time of its discovery under Josiah there is not the slightest occasion to attribute fraud to anyone engaged in the transaction. The document agreed fairly well with what was the tradition of Jerusalem, and no one at that day could distinguish between a writing a century old or even less and a writing of Moses own time. The country priests and the mass of the people were not consulted as to enforcing it, and they would not have known if they had been consulted. On any reading of the history, the reforms proceeded from a very small group, and any general "tradition of the Jews" was nonexistent.
(1) The reforms added to theoretical tradition the additional influence of practical experience and the idea of course dominated the minds of the more earnest among the exiles. Ezekiel, in particular, realized that only at a single sanctuary could the worship of God be kept pure--the single sanctuary was God's will. And Ezekiel's influence was immense. Now it is to be noted that at the return only those came back who had a real enthusiasm for Jerusalem, as Babylonia was, materially speaking, a far more attractive place than the Palestine of that day. That the single sanctuary could have been questioned by any of these Jews or that they could have conceived of Moses as instituting anything of less dignity is impossible.
(2) Other reforms also had been at work. Even in Dt the more primitive note of joyousness was maintained in the sacrifices. But joyousness in simple life is often dissipation in cultured life and the peace offering could be made a debauch (Isa 22:12-14; Prov 7:14). A sense of personal guilt had become far better developed and the incongruity of penitential worship with a festal meal was recognized. A very slight change was made: the portion was to be eaten by the priest instead of the worshipper--and the sin and trespass offerings emerged. The abuses were cut away by this one stroke and the peace offering proper retired into the background. And sacrifices were made the proper center of the official worship. In accord with the growing culture, proportions of gifts, dates of feasts, etc., were specified more and more exactly, the worship was surrounded with a more impressive ritual, and, in particular, the officiating priests substituted vestments suited to the better taste of the time for the old loin-cloth. Traces are left in the Old Testament of difficulties regarding the rights of the various classes of priests to minister but the matter was settled eventually in a manner that satisfied all. Priests formerly guilty of idolatry and their descendants were admitted to share in the worship and the priestly revenues, but the actual offering of sacrifice was restricted to those who had been faithful. The proper support of the clergy so formed required, in accordance with their dignity, more elaborate provisions than had been needed in the simpler times of old, but was accomplished in a manner again entirely satisfactory. The religion of no other nation could have survived the Babylonian exile intact. But Israel returned, with the elements formerly necessary but now outgrown changed into a form adapted to the new task the nation had before it--the preparation of itself and the world for the advent of Christ.
This growth toward the higher, involving as it did the meeting of all kinds of obstacles, the solving of all kinds of problems, the learning when to abandon elements that had been transcended, is unique in the history of religions. And the explanation of its uniqueness can be found only in the guidance of God. And in the history as reconstructed God is seen truly as the Father, who trained His children little by little, giving them only what they were able to receive but bringing them surely to Himself. And in the documents that contain the precepts for each stage of progress God's hand can be seen no less clearly. To be sure, in the secular science of history (as in physics or astronomy) His revelation was expressed in forms that His people could understand. This alteration--and this alteration only--in our view of what is covered by Biblical inspiration is the sacrifice demanded by the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis.
LITERATURE.
This is overwhelming and reference must be made to the separate articles. The standard analysis is that of The Oxford Hexateuch (1900), more briefly in The Composition of the Hexateuch by Carpenter and Harford (Battersby) (1902). Marx, Die Bucher Moses und Josua (1907), is the best brief introduction. Gunkel's Genesis (1910) in the Nowack series, his more popular Die Urgeschichte und die Patriarchen (1911), and his "Die israelitische Literatur" in Die Kultur der Gegenwart, I, 7 (1906), should on no account be neglected. The best treatment of the inspiration question from the standpoint of pure dogmatics is F. J. Hall's Authority: Ecclesiastical and Biblical (1908).
In the above discussion it has been assumed that our text of the Old Testament is at least relatively trustworthy. The reader interested in what can be done by textual reconstruction will find the opposite poles represented in the works of Wiener and of Cheyne.
Burton Scott Easton
(EDITORIAL NOTE.--The promoters of the Encyclopedia are not to be understood as endorsing all the views set forth in Dr. Easton's article (see CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE ). It was thought right, however, that, in such a work of reference, there should be given a full and adequate presentation of so popular a theory.)
See ARCHAEOLOGY AND CRITICISM .
krit'-i-siz'-m: Criticism in General
II. LOWER OR TEXTUAL CRITICISM
Manuscripts and Versions
(4) Literary and Historical Grounds of Theory
(a) Oral, Documentary, and Dependence Theories
(d) Authorship--Lukan and Johannine Questions
(3) Modern "Critical-Historical" School
(4) Remaining Writings of New Testament
LITERATURE
Criticism in General:
So much has been said and written in recent years on "Criticism" that it is desirable that the reader should have an exact idea of what criticism is, of the methods it employs, and of the results it reaches, or believes itself to have reached, in its application to Scripture. Such a survey will show the legitimacy and indispensableness of a truly scientific criticism, at the same time that it warns against the hasty acceptance of Speculative and hypothetical constructions. Criticism is more than a description of phenomena; it implies a process of sifting, testing, proving, sometimes with the result of establishing, often with that of modifying or reversing, traditional opinions. Criticism goes wrong when used recklessly, or under the influence of some dominant theory or prepossession. A chief cause of error in its application to the record of a supernatural revelation is the assumption that nothing supernatural can happen. This is the vitiating element in much of the newer criticism, both of the Old Testament and of the New Testament.
1. Lower or Textual Criticism:
Criticism of Scripture ("Biblical criticism") is usually divided into what is called "lower or textual criticism" and "higher criticism"--the latter a phrase round which many misleading associations gather. "Lower criticism" deals strictly with the text of Scripture, endeavoring to ascertain what the real text of each book was as it came from the hands of its author; "higher criticism" concerns itself with the resultant problems of age, authorship, sources, simple or composite character, historical worth, relation to period of origin, etc.
The former--"textual criticism"--has a well-defined field in which it is possible to apply exact canons of judgment: the latter--"higher criticism"--while invaluable as an aid in the domain of Biblical introduction (date, authorship, genuineness, contents, destination, etc.), manifestly tends to widen out illimitably into regions where exact science cannot follow it, where, often, the critic's imagination is his only law.
It was only gradually that these two branches of criticism became differentiated. "Textual criticism" for long took the lead, in association with a sober form of Biblical "introduction." The relations now tend to be reversed. "Higher criticism," having largely absorbed "introduction" into itself, extends its operations into the textual field, endeavoring to get behind the text of the existing sources, and to show how this "grew" from simpler beginnings to what it now is. Here, also, there is wide opening for arbitrariness. It would be wrong, however, to deny the legitimate place of "higher criticism," or belittle the great services it is capable of rendering, because of the abuses to which it is frequently liable.
It is now necessary that these two forms of criticism should be looked at more particularly.
II. Lower or Textual Criticism.
We take first lower or textual criticism. There has never been a time when criticism of Scripture--lower and higher--has been altogether absent. The Jews applied a certain criticism to their sacred writings, alike in the selection of the books, and in the settlement of the text. Examples are seen in the marginal notes to the Hebrew Scriptures (Qere and Kethibh). The Fathers of the early church compared manuscripts of the New Testament books, noting their differences, and judging of the books themselves. The Reformers, it is well known, did not accept blindly the judgments of antiquity, but availed themselves of the best light which the new learning afforded. The materials at the disposal of scholars in that age, however, were scanty, and such as existed were not used with much thoroughness or critical discernment. As aids multiplied with progress of discovery, comparison of manuscripts and versions one with another and with patristic quotations, revealed manifold divergencies and it became apparent that, in both Old Testament and New Testament, the text in current use in the church was far from perfect. "Various readings" accumulated. Not a few of these, indeed, were obvious blunders; many had little or no support in the more ancient authorities; for others, again, authority was fairly equally divided. Some were interpolations which had no right to be in the text at all. How, in these circumstances, was the true text to be ascertained? The work was one of great delicacy, and could only be accomplished by the most painstaking induction of facts, and the strictest application of sound methods. Thus arose a science of textual criticism, which, ramifying in many directions, has attained vast dimensions, and yielded an immense body of secure knowledge in its special department.
The materials with which textual criticism works (apparatus criticus) are, as just said, chiefly manuscripts, versions (translations into other tongues), quotations and allusions in patristic writings, with lectionaries (church service-books), and similar aids. The first step is the collection and collation of the material, to which fresh discovery is constantly adding; the noting of its peculiarities, and testing of its age and value; the grouping and designation of it for reference. A next important task is the complete collection of the "various readings" and other diversities of text (omissions, interpolations, etc.), brought to light through comparison of the material, and the endeavor to assign these to their respective causes.
More frequently than not errors manuscripts are unintentional, and the causes giving rise to them are sufficiently obvious. Such are the carelessness of scribes, lapses of memory, similarity of sounds (in dictation), or in shape of letters (in copying), wrong dividing of words, omission of a line or clause owing to successive lines or clauses ending with the same word. Intentional changes, again, arise from insertion in the text of marginal notes or glosses, from motives of harmonizing, from the substitution of smoother for harsher or more abrupt expressions--more rarely, from dogmatic reasons.
Mistakes of the above kinds can generally be detected by careful scrutiny of sources, but a large number of cases remain in which the correct reading is still doubtful. These, next, have to be dealt with by the impartial weighing and balancing of authorities; a task involving new and delicate inquiries, and the application of fresh rules. It does not suffice to reckon numbers; manuscripts and versions have themselves to be tested as respects reliability and value. Through the presence of peculiarities pointing to a common origin manuscripts come to be grouped into classes and families, and their individual testimony is correspondingly discounted. Older authorities, naturally, are preferred to younger but the possibility has to be reckoned with that a later manuscript may preserve a reading which the older manuscripts have lost. Such rules obtain as that, of two readings, preference is to be given to the more difficult, as less likely to be the result of corruption. But even this has its limits, for a reading may be difficult even to the point of unintelligibility, yet may arise from a simple blunder. As a last resort, in cases of perplexity, conjectural emendation may be admitted; only, however, as yielding probability, not certainty.
In the application of these principles an important distinction has to be made between the Old Testament and the New Testament, arising from the relative paucity of material for critical purposes in the one case, and the abundance in the other. The subject is treated here generally; for details see articles onLANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT ;LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT ;TEXT AND MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT .
Manuscripts and Versions:
In the Old Testament, textual criticism labors under the peculiar disadvantage that, with one minute exception (a papyrus fragment of the 2nd century, giving a version of the Decalogue), all known Hebrew manuscripts are late (the oldest not going beyond the 9th century AD); further, that the manuscripts seem all to be based on one single archetype, selected by the rabbis at an early date, and thereafter adhered to by copyists with scrupulous care (compare G. A. Smith, OTJC, 69 ff; Driver, Text of Sam, xxxvii ff; Strack, however, dissents). The variations which these manuscripts present, accordingly, are slight and unimportant. For a knowledge of the state of the text prior to the adoption of this standard, criticism is dependent on comparison with the versions--especially the SEPTUAGINT (which see), with the SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH (which see), and with parallel passages in the Old Testament itself (e.g. in Samual, Kings, Chronicles). Frequent obscurities in the Hebrew text, with undeniable discrepancies in names and numbers, show that before the fixing of the text extensive corruption had already entered. A simple instance of mistake is in Isa 9:3, where the King James Version reads: "Thou hast multiplied the nation, and not increased the joy." The context shows that the "not" is out of place: the Revised Version (British and American) therefore rightly reads (with the Hebrew Qere: the sounds are similar), "thou hast increased their joy." In the Septuagint the divergences are often very great in order, arrangement, and readings; there are extensive interpolations and omissions (in Jeremiah, Graf reckons that 2,700 words of the Massoretic text are omitted); evidences, where the alterations are not of design, that the Hebrew manuscripts employed by the translators often differed widely from those approved in Palestin. The Samaritan recension likewise exhibits considerable differences.
It does not follow that, where difference exists, these rival texts are to be preferred to the Massoretic. Few, since the exhaustive examination of Gesenius, would affirm the superiority of the Samaritan to the Hebrew; even in regard to the Septuagint the trend of opinion seems increasingly in favor of the text of the Massoretes (compare Skinner, "Genesis," International Critical Commentary, xxxv-xxxvi). There is no need, however, to maintain the general superiority of the above texts to the Massoretic to be convinced that, in many instances, the Septuagint, in some cases, probably, even the Sam, has retained readings from which the Massoretic Text has departed. Old Testament criticism has, therefore, a clear field for its labors, and there can be little doubt that, in its cautious application, it has reached many sound results. Less reliance can be placed on the conjectural criticism now so largely in vogue. Dr. G.A. Smith has justly animadverted on the new textual criticism of the poetical and prophetical books, "through which it drives like a great plowshare, turning up the whole surface, and menacing not only the minor landmarks, but, in the case of the prophets, the main outlines of the field as well" (Quarterly Review, January, 1907). This, however, trenches on the domain of the higher criticism.
In the New Testament the materials of criticism are vastly more abundant than in the Old Testament; but, with the abundance, while a much larger area of certainty is attainable, more intricate and difficult problems also arise. The wealth of manuscripts of the whole or parts of the Greek New Testament far exceeds that existing for any other ancient writings (Nestle mentions 3,829: 127 uncials and 3,702 cursives: Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament, English translation, 34-35, 81); the manuscripts of versions (excluding the Vulgate, reckoned by thousands), are likewise very numerous.
Greek manuscripts are usually divided into uncials and cursives (or minuscules) from the character of the writing; the oldest uncials go back to the 4th and 5th centuries. The five chief, that alone need be named, are the Codex Sinaiticus (4th century), the Codex Vaticanus (B, 4th century), the Codex Alexandrinus (A, 5th century), the Codex Ephraemi (C, 5th century), the Codex Bezae (D, Gospels and Acts, Greek and Latin, 6th century). These manuscripts again are grouped according to affinities (Bengel, Griesbach, Lachmann, are here chief precursors; Westcott and Hort, chief modern authority), Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus (B) going together as representing one type of text, in the opinion of Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek the best (the so-called "Neutral"); Codex Bezae (D) representing a "Western" text, with marked peculiarities; A and C exhibiting mixed texts. The VSS, in turn, Syriac, Old Latin, Egyptian (originating with 2nd and 3rd centuries), present interesting problems in their relations to one another and to the Greek manuscripts Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Bezae. With the Syriac versions (Sinaitic, Curetonian, Peshitta), Tatian's Diatessaron, or Harmony of the Gospels, ought to be mentioned. Formerly the Peshitta was taken to be the oldest Syriac version (2nd century); now, especially since the discovery of the Lewis (Sinaitic) palimpsest, it tends to be regarded as a later revision of the older Syriac texts (probably by Rabula of Edessa, beginning of the 5th century). The Old Latin, also the old Syriac, manuscripts show marked affinities with the text of Codex Bezae (D)--the "Western" type.
The question chiefly exercising scholars at the present time is, accordingly, the relation of the Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in the Greek text based on Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus to the Western text represented by Codex Bezae, but now finding early support from the Old Latin and Syriac, as well as from quotations in the 2nd and 3rd Fathers. The Western text is discounted by Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek for its para-phrastic character, and "astonishing freedom" in changing, inserting and omitting (Westcott-Hort, 122 ff); yet, on internal grounds, certain important omissions in this text of the last three chapters of Luke are accepted by these authorities as representing the purer text, the rejected readings being termed "non-Western interpolations." A newer school, however, is disposed to accept the Western readings, as, to a much larger extent than was formerly supposed, the more original; while some writers, as Blass, Nestle, in part Zahn (compare Nestle, op. cit., 324 ff), seek a solution of the difference of texts in theory of two editions (Blass, Luke and Acts; Zahn, Acts alone). This theory has not met with much acceptance, and the problems of the Western text must still be regarded as unsolved. The question is not, indeed, vital, as no important doctrine of the New Testament is affected; but it touches the genuineness of several passages to which high value is attached. E.g. the words at the Supper, "which is given for you," etc. (Lk 22:19,20, not in D), are excluded by Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek as a non-Western interpolation; while the passage on the angel and the bloody sweat (Lk 22:43,14 in both Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Bezae), and the first word on the cross, "Father, forgive them," etc. (Lk 23:34, in Codex Sinaiticus, omitted by Codex Bezae (D) and the Sinaitic Syriac), are rejected as Western interpolations. The Revised Version (British and American) retains these passages with marginal note.
As respects results, it may be said generally that the labors of a long line of scholars have given us a New Testament text on which, in nearly all essential respects, we can safely rely. Others, it is to be owned, take a less sanguine view (compare Nestle, op. cit., 227 ff). The correct reading seems undeniably settled in a large majority of cases. The the Revised Version (British and American) embodies most of the assured results; doubtful cases are noted in the margin. Among passages long known to be interpolations, now altogether removed, is that on the three witnesses in 1 Jn 5:8. The two longest passages noted as not belonging to the original text are the last 12 verses of Mk (16:9-20), and the story of the woman taken in adultery (Jn 7:53 through 8:11).
The scope of the higher criticism has already been indicated. Many of the inquiries it undertakes were formerly covered by what was called Biblical introduction; the flight of the newer science, however, is bolder, and the problems it seeks to solve are more complicated and far-reaching. An important part of its work is the analysis of books, with the view of determining their component parts (e.g. the J,E,P,D, of the Pentateuch), the age, origin, and characteristics of each, their connection with external conditions and the state of belief and life of the time. The nature of its task will be better understood from a rapid survey of its procedure.
Higher criticism began, mainly, with the Old Testament. Already in the 2nd century, Gnostics assailed the Old Testament as the work of an inferior deity (the Demiurge), and heretical Ebionites (Clementine Recognitions and Homilies) declared it to be corrupted with false prophecy. In the 17th century Spinoza prepared the way in his Tractatus (1670) for future rationalistic attacks.
The beginning of higher criticism in the stricter sense is commonly associated with the French physician Astruc, who, in his Conjectures, in 1753, drew attention to the fact that, in some sections of Genesis, the Divine name employed is "Elohim" (God), in others, "Yahweh." This he accounted for by the use of distinct documents by Moses in the composition of the book. Eichhorn (1779), to whom the name "higher criticism" is due, supplemented Astruc's theory by the correct observation that this distinction in the use of the names was accompanied by other literary peculiarities. It soon became further evident that, though the distinction in the names mostly ceased after the revelation of Yahweh to Moses (Ex 3:6), the literary peculiarities extended much farther than Gen, indeed till the end of Josh (Bleek, 1822; Ewald, 1831; Stahelin, 1835). Instead of a "Pentateuch," recognized as of composite authorship, there was now postulated a "Hexateuch" (see PENTATEUCH ;HEXATEUCH ). Meanwhile De Wette (1805-6), on grounds of style and contents, had claimed for Dt an origin not earlier than the reign of Josiah. "Fragmentary" theories, like Vater's, which contributed little to the general development, may be left unnoticed. A conservative school, headed by Hengstenberg (1831) and Havernick (1837), contested these conclusions of the critics, and contended for the unity and Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch Bolder spirits, as Vatke (1835), anticipated the conclusions of the newer critical school in declaring that the Levitical laws were latest of all in origin. Their voices were as yet unheeded.
A distinct advance on preceding theories was made by Hupfeld (1853; in part anticipated by Ilgen, 1789). Hitherto the prevailing assumption had been that there was one fundamental document--the so-called Elohistic, dated usually in the age of the Judges, or the time of Saul or David--and that the Yahwistic parts were "supplementary" to this (not a separate document). It was the merit of Hupfeld to perceive that not a few of the sections in the "Elohistic" document did not bear the usual literary marks of that writing, but closely resembled the "Yahwistic" sections in everything but the use of the Divine name. These portions he singled out and erected into a document by themselves (though they bear no signs of being such), while the Yahwistic parts were relieved of their "supplementary" character, and regarded as belonging to a distinct document also. There were thus now 3 documents, attributed to as many authors--the original Elohist, the 2nd or Younger Elohist (E) and the Jahwist (Jahwist). Deuteronomy, as a distinct book, was added to these, making 4 documents in all.
Thus matters stood till the appearance of Graf's work, The Historical Books of the Old Testament, in 1866, through which something like a revolution in the critical outlook was effected. Following in the track of Vatke, earlier, Reuss, of Strassburg, had taken up the idea that the Levitical legislation could not, as was commonly presumed, be earlier than Deuteronomy, but was, on the contrary, later--in fact, a product of the age of the exile. Graf adopted and developed this theory. He still for a time, while putting the laws late, maintained an earlier date for the Elohistic narratives. He was soon led, however, to see that laws and history must go together; so the whole Elohistic writing was removed from its former place, and brought down bodily to the end of the religious development. Graf, at the same time, did not regard it as an independent document. At first theory was scouted, but gradually, through the able advocacy of Kuenen and Wellhausen--especially the latter--it secured ascendancy, and is now regarded as the critical view paragraph excellence. Order and nomenclature of the assumed documents were now changed. The Elohist, instead of standing first, was put last under the designation P or Priestly Code; Wellhausen's symbol for this writing was Q. Its date was taken to be post-exilian. The Jahwist becomes J; the Elohist becomes E. These are placed in the 9th or 8th centuries BC (circa 850-750), but are supposed to have been combined a cent or so later (JE). Deuteronomy, identified with the law-book found in the temple in the reign of Josiah (2 Ki 22), is thought to have been written shortly before that time. The order is therefore no longer 1st Elohist-Jahwist and 2nd Elohist-D, but J and E-D-P. The whole, it is held, was finally united into the great law-book (Pent) brought by Ezra to Jerusalem from Babylon (458 BC; Ezr 7:6-10), and read by him before the people 14 years later (444 BC; Neh 8).
(4) Literary and Historical Grounds of Theory.
A sketch like the above gives, of course, no proper idea of the grounds on which, apart from the distinction in the Divine names, the critical theory just described is based. The grounds are partly literary--the discrimination of documents, e.g. resting on differences of style and conception, duplicates, etc. (see PENTATEUCH )--but partly also historical, in accordance with the critic's conception of the development of religion and institutions in Israel. A main reliance is placed on the fact that the history, with its many sanctuaries up to the time of Deuteronomy, is in conflict with the law of that book, which recognizes only one sanctuary as legitimate (chapter 12), and equally with the Priestly Code, which throughout assumes this centralizing law. The laws of Dt and Priestly Code, therefore, cannot be early. The prophets, it is held, knew nothing of a Levitical legislation, and refused to regard the sacrificial system as Divine (Jer 7:22 ff).
The code under which older Israel lived was that formulated in the Book of the Covenant (Ex 20-23), which permitted many altars (Ex 20:24 f). The law of Deuteronomy was the product of a centralizing movement on the part of the prophets, issuing in the reformation of Josiah. The Priestly Code was the work of fertile brains and pens of post-exilian priests and scribes, incorporating older usage, devising new laws, and throwing the whole into the fictitious form of Mosaic wilderness legislation.
The revolution wrought by these newer constructions, however, is not adequately realized till regard is had to their effects on the picture given in the Old Testament itself of Israel's history, religion and literature. It is not too much to say that this picture is nearly completely subverted. By the leaders of the school (Graf, Kuenen, Wellhausen, Duhm, Stade, etc.) the supernatural element in the history and religion is totally eliminated; even by those who do not go so far, little is left standing. The history of the Pentateuch--indeed the history down to the time of the kings--is largely given up. Genesis is legend, Exodus hardly more trustworthy, Josh a romance. The histories of Samuel and David are "written up" by a theocratic narrator. None of the laws--even the Decalogue--are allowed to be certainly Mosaic. Monotheism is believed to have come in with Amos and Hosea; earlier, Yahweh was a "tribal" God. Ark, tabernacle, priesthood, feasts, as depicted in the Priestly Code, are post-exilic fiction. The treatment accorded to the Pentateuch necessarily reacts on the other historical books; the prophetic literature suffers in an almost equal degree through disintegration and mutilation. It is not Isaiah alone--where the question has long been mooted of the post-exilian origin of chapters 40 through 66 (see ISAIAH ); the critical knife is applied with scarcely less freedom to the remaining prophetical books. Few, if any, of the psalms are allowed to be preexilic. Daniel is a work of the Maccabean age.
As a general summary of the results of the movement, which it is thought "the future is not likely to reverse," the following may be quoted from Professor A. S. Peake: "The analysis of the Pentateuch into four main documents, the identification of the law on which Josiah's reformation was based with some form of the Deuteronomic Code, the compilation of that code in the reign of Manasseh at the earliest, the fixing of the Priestly Code to a date later than Ezekiel, the highly composite character of some parts of the prophetic literature, especially the Book of Isaiah, the post-exilian origin of most of the Psalms, and large parts of the Book of Prov, the composition of Job not earlier than the exile and probably later, the Maccabean date of Daniel, and the slightly earlier date of Ecclesiastes" ("Present Movement of Biblical Science," in Manchester, Inaugural Lects, 32).
The criticism of this elaborate theory belongs to the arts which deal with the several points involved, and is not here attempted at length (compare the present writer's Orr, The Problem of the Old Testament). The gains that have accrued from it on the literary side in a more exact and scholarly knowledge of the phenomena to be explained (e.g. distinction in the Divine names; distinction of P element in the Pentateuch from that known as JE) are not to be questioned; on the historical and religious sides also much has been done to quicken interest, enlarge knowledge and correct older ideas which have proved untenable--in general, to place the whole facts of the Old Testament in a clearer and more assured light. On the other hand, much even in the literary criticism is subjective, arbitrary and conjectural, while the main hypothesis of the subsequentness of the Levitical law to Ezekiel, with the general view taken of the historical and religious development in Israel, is open to the most serious exception. The Old Testament has its own account to give of the origin of its religion in the monotheism of Abraham, the covenants with the patriarchs, the legislation through Moses, which is not thus readily to be set aside in the interests of a theory resting largely on naturalistic pre-suppositions (see BIBLE ). There is not a word in the history in Neh 8 to suggest that the law introduced by Ezra was a new one; it was received without demur by a deeply divided community as the ancient law of Moses. So with the law of Deuteronomy in the time of Josiah (2 Ki 22). Its genuineness was doubted by no one. The position of theory, generally, is by no means so secure as many of its adherents suppose. Internally, it is being pushed to extremes which tend to discredit it to sober minds, and otherwise is undergoing extensive modifications. Documents are multiplied, dates lowered, authors are converted into "schools." Archaeologists, in large majority, declare against it. The facts they adduce tend to confirm the history in parts where it had been most impugned. The new Babylonian school in Germany (that of Winckler) assails it in its foundations. Recently, the successor of Kuenen in Leyden, Professor B. D. Eerdmans, formerly a supporter, has broken with theory in its entirety, and subjects the documentary hypothesis to a damaging criticism. It is too early yet to forecast results, but the opinion may be hazarded that, as in the case of the Tubingen New Testament critical school in last cent referred to below, the prevailing critical theory of the Old Testament will experience fundamental alteration in a direction nearer to older ideas, though it is too much to expect that traditional views will ever be resuscitated in their completeness.
Higher criticism of the New Testament may be said to begin, in a Deistic spirit, with Reimarus (Fragments, published by Lessing, 1778), and, on Hegelian lines, with Strauss (Life of Jesus, 1835). In the interests of his mythical theory, Strauss subjected every part of the gospel history to a destructive criticism.
In a more systematic way, F. Baur (1826-60), founder of the famous Tubingen school, likewise proceeding from Hegel, applied a drastic criticism to all the documents of the New Testament. Strauss started with the Gospels. Baur sought firmer ground in the phenomena of the Apostolic Age. The key to Baur's theory lies in the alleged existence of Pauline and Petrine parties in the early church, in conflict with one another. The true state of matters is mirrored, he holds, not in the Book of Acts, a composition of the 2nd century, written to gloss over the differences between the original apostles and Paul, but in the four contemporary and undoubtedly genuine epistles of Paul, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Roman, and in the Book of Revelation. In these documents the church is seen rent by a schism that threatened its very existence. By and by attempts were made at conciliation, the stages of which are reflected in the Gospels and remaining writings of the New Testament. The Fourth Gospel, about 170 AD, brings up the rear. This theory, which found influential support in the scholarship of the time (Schwegler, Zeller, etc.), could not stand the test of impartial investigation, and is now on all sides discredited. Professor Bacon, in a recent work, pronounces its theory of the Johannine writings to be "as obsolete as the Ptolemaic geography" (Fourth Gospel, 20). Its influence on later criticism has, however, been considerable.
Meanwhile more sober scholarship was concerning itself with the intricate problem of the relations of the Synoptic Gospels. The problem is a very real one (see GOSPELS ). The three gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke are seen on inspection to exhibit an amount of agreement in subject-matter, order, often in language, which cannot be accounted for except on theory of some common source. Suppose the Gospels divided into sections, in 52 of these the narratives coincide, 12 more are common to Matthew and Mark, 5 to Mark and Luke, and 14 to Matthew and Luke, while 5 are peculiar to Matthew, 2 to Mark and 9 to Luke. The verbal agreement is greater in the recital of the words of others, particularly of words of Jesus, than in the narrative portions.
(i) Oral, Documentary, and Dependence Theories:
How is this to be explained? Three forms of theory were early propounded--the oral, the documentary, and the hypothesis of dependence of one gospel upon another. Of these theories, the oldest is the 3rd (Augustine already held that Mark was an abridgment of Matthew and Luke), and to it, in combination with the 2nd, though in reversed order (Mark being put first), it will be seen below that criticism has largely reverted. The oral theory, proposed by Gieseler (1818), has, till recently, been the favorite one in England (Westcott, Alford, etc., with Godet, Pressense, Ebrard, etc., on the Continent). In it resemblances in the three Gospels are explained by an oral tradition assumed to have attained a relatively fixed form while the apostles were yet teaching together in Jerusalem. The documentary theory took its origin with Eichhorn (1794), but in the hands of Marsh (1801), finally in Eichhorn's own (1804), received so elaborate a development as completely to discredit it. The dependence theory, in turn, went through every possible shape. Gradually, with sifting, certain combinations were eliminated (those which put Luke first, or Matthew last, or made Mark a middle term), till only two remained--Matthew, Luke, Mark (Griesbach 1789-90, Baur, etc.), and Mark, Matthew, Luke (Weisse, 1838, Wilke, 1838, etc.). The prestige of the Baur school obtained a temporary ascendancy for the former view--that which put Mark last; this, however, has now quite given way in favor of Mark's priority. There remained a division of opinion as to whether the Mark employed by the other evangelists was the canonical Mark (Weisse, Meyer, B. Weiss, etc.), or an ur-Markus (Holtzmann, Reuss, etc.), but the difficulties of the latter hypothesis proved so insurmountable that Holtzmann finally gave it up.
(ii) The "Logia":
It is obvious, however, that the use of Mark by the other evangelists, even if granted, does not yet completely solve the synoptical problem. There is still to be considered that large mass of matter--chiefly discourses--common to Matthew and Luke, not to speak of the material peculiar to Luke itself. For the explanation of these sections it becomes necessary to postulate a second source, usually identified with the much-canvassed Logia of Papias, and designated by recent scholars (Wellhausen, etc.) Q. It is regarded as a collection of discourses, possibly by Matthew, with or without an admixture of narrative matter (B. Weiss, etc.).
(iii) Two-Source Theory:
This yields the "two-source" theory at present prevailing in synoptical criticism (for a different view, compare Zahn's Introduction). Matthew and Luke, on this view, are not independent Gospels, but are drawn up on the basis of (1) Mark and (2) Q = the Logia, with original material on the part of Luke (see GOSPELS ). A theory which commands the assent of so many scholars has necessarily great weight. It cannot, however, be regarded as finally established. Many grave difficulties remain; there is, besides, a prima facie improbability in a Gospel like Mark's being treated in the manner supposed or included among the "attempts" which Luke's own Gospel was designed to supersede (Lk 1:1-4; compare Wright, Luke's Gospel in Greek, xiv, xv).
(iv) Authorship--Lukan and Johannine Questions:
With criticism of the sources of the Gospels there goes, of course, the question of authorship. A powerful vindication of the Lucan authorship of the 3rd Gospel and the Book of Acts has recently come from the pen of Professor A. Harnack, who maintains that in this, as in most other points regarding early Christian literature, "tradition is right" (compare his Luke, the Physician, English translation). Outside the Synoptics, the burning question still is the authorship of the Johannine writings. Here also, however, the extreme positions of the Baur school are entirely given up ("It is perfectly apparent," says Professor Bacon, "that Baur mistook the period of dissemination for that of origin," op. cit., 21), and powerful defenses of Johannine authorship have of late appeared (notably Sanday's Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, and ex-Principal Drummond's Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel).
(3) Modern "Historical-Critical" School.
On the other hand, a new and intensely aggressive radical school has recently come to the front, the so-called "historical-critical," which treats the text and history of the Gospels generally with a recklessness to which no limits can be put. It is even doubted if Jesus claimed to be the Messiah (Wrede). Sayings are accepted, rejected, or mutilated at pleasure. The latest phase of this school is the "Apocalyptic," which finds the essence of Christ's message in His insistence on the approaching end of the world (compare Schweitzer, Von Reimarus zu Wrede; English translation The Quest of the Historical Jesus). These excesses may be depended on to cure themselves.
(4) Remaining Writings of the New Testament.
For the rest of the writings on the New Testament, the trend of criticism has been in the main in a conservative direction. One by one the Pauline Epistles have been given back to the apostle--doubt chiefly still resting in certain minds on the Pastorals. The Book of Rev is restored by most to the age of Domitian, where tradition places it. Its relation to the Fourth Gospel and to John is still in dispute, and some moderns would see in it a groundwork of Jewish apocalypse. These and kindred questions are discussed in the arts devoted to them.
LITERATURE.
Articles on Text, manuscripts, VSS, of Old Testament and New Testament in Bible Dicts. and Encyclopedias: works on Introduction to Old Testament and New Testament.
On the Old Testament.
S. Davidson, Revision of the English Old Testament; W. R. Smith, Old Testament in the Jewish Church; Wellhausen, Prol to the Hist of Israel (English translation); Kuenen, The Hexateuch (English translation); Oxford Hexateuch according to the Revised Version (British and American); Orr, Problem of the Old Testament, and Bible Under Trial; H. M. Wiener, Essays on Pentateuchal Criticism; W. Moller. Are the Critics Right? (English translation).
On the New Testament.
Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek, Intro; F. G. Kenyon, Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament; Nestle, Textual Crit of the Greek Testament (English translation); Scrivener, Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 4th edition; K. Lake, The Text of the New Testament; Ebrard, Gospel History (English translation); F. C. Burkitt, The Gospel History and Its Transmission; Sanday, The Life of Christ in Recent Research; Schweitzer, Von Reimarus zu Wrede (English translation: The Quest of the Historical Jesus): A. S. Peake, A Critical Introduction to the New Testament.
James Orr
krok'-o-dil.
See CHAMELEON .
krook'-bakt (gibben; kurtos): A disqualification for the priesthood (Lev 21:20); was probably an angular curvature of the spine, usually the result of tubercular caries of the vertebrae. It was by no means uncommon in ancient Egypt, where I have found a considerable number of spines affected with this disease. Some Talmudic authorities explain it as meaning "very dark colored," but this is unlikely.
The woman bound by the spirit of infirmity and unable to lift herself (Lk 13:11-17) was affected with senile kyphosis, a chronic bone disease often found among aged men (and more frequently women) whose lives have been spent in agricultural labor. In these the vertebrae become altered in shape so that it is impossible to straighten the back. Some rabbinical authorities believed all deformities to be due to Satan, and to this our Lord seems to have alluded in his rebuke to those who caviled at His healing on the Sabbath. I have found this condition in some Egyptian skeletons, and have seen it in a Palestinian fellah. A skeleton affected with a similar curvature was found buried under the threshold of a house at Gezer, where she had evidently been offered as a foundation sacrifice.
Alex. Macalister
krook'-ed (`awah, `aqash, `aqalqal, `aqallathon, pethaltol; skolios): Primarily designates something that is bent, twisted or deformed (Isa 27:1; 45:2 the King James Version).
Figurative: (1) It designates a course of action that deviates from rectitude, especially deceit, guile, hypocrisy (Dt 32:5; Prov 2:15; Eccl 1:15; Lk 3:5; compare Phil 2:15); (2) trials (sent by God, Eccl 7:13; Lam 3:9); (3) difficulties (removed by God, Isa 42:16).
krook'-ed sur'-pent.
See ASTRONOMY .
(1) As noun the translation of mur'-ah (Lev 1:16), which is the craw of a bird, especially of doves and pigeons, which had to be removed by the priest before he offered the birds as a burnt sacrifice.
(2) As a verb it is (Ezek 17:4,22) the translation of qaTaph, which has the meaning of "cutting off," "cutting down," "plucking."
(stauros, "a cross," "the crucifixion"; skolops, "a stake," "a pole"): The name is not found in the Old Testament. It is derived from the Latin word crux. In the Greek language it is stauros, but sometimes we find the word skolops used as its Greek equivalent. The historical writers, who transferred the events of Roman history into the Greek language, make use of these two words. No word in human language has become more universally known than this word, and that because all of the history of the world since the death of Christ has been measured by the distance which separates events from it. The symbol and principal content of the Christian religion and of Christian civilization is found in this one word.
The cross occurs in at least four different forms: (1) the form usually seen in pictures, the crux immissa, in which the upright beam projected above the shorter crosspiece; this is most likely the type of cross on which the Saviour died, as may be inferred from the inscription which was nailed above His head; (2) the crux commissa, or Anthony's cross, which has the shape of the letter T; (3) the Greek cross of later date, in which the pieces are equally long; (4) the crux decussata, or Andrew's cross, which has the shape of the letter X.
2. Discovery of the True Cross:
The early church historians Socrates (1, 17), Sozomen (2, 1), Rufinus (1, 7) and Theodoret (1, 18) all make mention of this tradition. The most significant thing is that Eusebius (Vit. Const., iii.26-28), who carries more weight than they all together, wholly omits it.
According to it, Helena, the mother of Constantine the Great, in 325 AD, when she was 79 years old, discovered the true cross of Jesus by an excavation she caused to be made on the traditional spot of His grave. With the cross of the Saviour were found the two crosses of the malefactors who were crucified with Him. A miracle of healing, wrought by touching the true cross, revealed its identity. Whenfound it was intact, even the holy nails of the crucifixion being discovered. The main part of the cross was deposited by Helena in a church erected over the spot. Of the remainder, a portion was inserted into the head of the statue of Constantine, and the balance was placed in a new church, specially erected for it at Rome and named after it Santa Croce. Small fragments of the wood of the true cross were sold, encrusted with gold and jewels, and since many among the wealthy believers were desirous of possessing such priceless relics, the miracle of the "multiplication of the cross" was devised, so that the relic suffered no diminution "et quasi intacta maneret" (Paulinus epistle 11 ad Sev). Fragments of the true cross are thus to be found in many Roman Catholic churches of many countries, all over Christendom. It is said that the East celebrated the staurosimos hemera (Crucifixion Day) on September 14, since the 4th century. The evidence for this fact is late and untrustworthy. It is certain that the West celebrated the Invention of the Cross, on May 3, since the time of Gregory the Great in the 6th century. The finding and publication of the apocryphal "Doctrina Addaei" has made it evident that the entire legend of the discovery of the cross by Helena is but a version of the old Edessa legend, which tells of an identical discovery of the cross, under the very same circumstances, by the wife of the emperor Claudius, who had been converted to Christianity by the preaching of Peter.
3. Symbolical Uses of the Cross:
The sign of the cross was well known in the symbolics of various ancient nations. Among the Egyptians it is said to have been the symbol of divinity and eternal life, and to have been found in the temple of Serapis. It is known either in the form of the Greek cross or in the form of the letter "T". The Spaniards found it to be well known, as a symbol, by the Mexicans and Peruvians, perhaps signifying the four elements, or the four seasons, or the four points of the compass.
The suffering implied in crucifixion naturally made the cross a symbol of pain, distress and burden-bearing. Thus Jesus used it Himself (Mt 10:38; 16:24). In Paulinic literature the cross stands for the preaching of the doctrine of the Atonement (1 Cor 1:18; Gal 6:14; Phil 3:18; Col 1:20). It expresses the bond of unity between the Jew and the Gentile (Eph 2:16), and between the believer and Christ, and also symbolizes sanctification (Gal 5:24). The cross is the center and circumference of the preaching of the apostles and of the life of the New Testament church.
As an instrument of death the cross was detested by the Jews. "Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree" (Gal 3:13; compare Dt 21:23), hence, it became a stumbling-block to them, for how could one accursed of God be their Messiah? Nor was the cross differently considered by the Romans. "Let the very name of the cross be far away not only from the body of a Roman citizen, but even from his thoughts, his eyes, his ears" (Cicero Pro Rabirio 5). The earliest mode of crucifixion seems to have been by impalation, the transfixion of the body lengthwise and crosswise by sharpened stakes, a mode of death-punishment still well known among the Mongol race. The usual mode of crucifixion was familiar to the Greeks, the Romans, the Egyptians, Persians and Babylonians (Thuc. 1, 110; Herod. iii.125, 159). Alexander the Great executed two thousand Tyrian captives in this way, after the fall of the city. The Jews received this form of punishment from the Syrians and Romans (Ant., XII, v, 4; XX, vi, 2; BJ, I, iv, 6). The Roman citizen was exempt from this form of death, it being considered the death of a slave (Cicero In Verrem i. 5, 66; Quint. viii.4). The punishment was meted out for such crimes as treason, desertion in the face of the enemy, robbery, piracy, assassination, sedition, etc. It continued in vogue in the Roman empire till the day of Constantine, when it was abolished as an insult to Christianity. Among the Romans crucifixion was preceded by scourging, undoubtedly to hasten impending death. The victim then bore his own cross, or at least the upright beam, to the place of execution. This in itself proves that the structure was less ponderous than is commonly supposed. When he was tied to the cross nothing further was done and he was left to die from starvation. If he was nailed to the cross, at least in Judea, a stupefying drink was given him to deaden the agony. The number of nails used seems to have been indeterminate. A tablet, on which the feet rested or on which the body was partly supported, seems to have been a part of the cross to keep the wounds from tearing through the transfixed members (Iren., Adv. haer., ii.42). The suffering of death by crucifixion was intense, especially in hot climates. Severe local inflammation, coupled with an insignificant bleeding of the jagged wounds, produced traumatic fever, which was aggravated the exposure to the heat of the sun, the strained of the body and insufferable thirst. The swelled about the rough nails and the torn lacerated tendons and nerves caused excruciating agony. The arteries of the head and stomach were surcharged with blood and a terrific throbbing headache ensued. The mind was confused and filled with anxiety and dread foreboding. The victim of crucifixion literally died a thousand deaths. Tetanus not rarely supervened and the rigors of the attending convulsions would tear at the wounds and add to the burden of pain, till at last the bodily forces were exhausted and the victim sank to unconsciousness and death. The sufferings were so frightful that "even among the raging passions of war pity was sometimes excited" (BJ, V, xi, 1). The length of this agony was wholly determined by the constitution of the victim, but death rarely ensued before thirty-six hours had elapsed. Instances are on record of victims of the cross who survived their terrible injuries when taken down from the cross after many hours of suspension (Josephus, Vita, 75). Death was sometimes hastened by breaking the legs of the victims and by a hard blow delivered under the armpit before crucifixion. Crura fracta was a well-known Roman term (Cicero Phil. xiii.12). The sudden death of Christ evidently was a matter of astonishment (Mk 15:44). The peculiar symptoms mentioned by John (19:34) would seem to point to a rupture of the heart, of which the Saviour died, independent of the cross itself, or perhaps hastened by its agony.
See BLOOD AND WATER .
Henry E. Dosker
kros'-wa (perek, literally, "division"): A forking or dividing of the way. Obadiah warns Edom, "And stand thou not in the crossway, to cut off those of his that escape" (Obad 1:14). In Septuagint, "a mountain pass."
kroun: The word crown in the Old Testament is a translation of five different Hebrew words, and in the New Testament of two Greek words. These express the several meanings, and must be examined to ascertain the same.
The five Hebrew words are as follows: (1) qodhqodh, from qadhadh; (2) zer, from zarar; (3) nezer, or nezer, both from nazar; (4) aTarah, from `atar; (5) kether, from kathar.
(1) Qodhqodh means "the crown of the head," and is also rendered in the King James Version "top of the head," "scalp," "pate." It comes from qadhadh, meaning "to shrivel up," "contract," or bend the body or neck through courtesy. Both the Revised Version (British and American) and the American Standard Revised Version, in Dt 28:35 and 33:16, translation it "crown" instead of "top" as in the King James Version. Jacob in his prophecy concerning his sons says: "The blessings of thy father .... shall be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of him that is prince among his brethren" (Gen 49:26 the American Revised Version, margin). Other references are: Dt 33:20; 2 Sam 14:25; Job 2:7; Isa 3:17; Jer 2:16; 48:45. Translated "scalp" in Ps 68:21 and "pate" in Ps 7:16.
(2) Zer means a "chaplet," something spread around the top as a molding about the border, and because of its wreath-like appearance called a crown. "That which presses, binds" (BDB). Comes from zarar, meaning "to diffuse" or "scatter." It is used in Ex 25:11,24,25; 30:3,1; 37:2,11,12,26,27.
(3) Nezer means something "set apart"; i.e. a dedication to the priesthood or the dedication of a Nazarite, hence, a chaplet or fillet as a symbol of such consecration. The word in the King James Version is rendered "crown," "consecration," "separation," "hair." Comes from nazar, meaning "to hold aloof" from impurity, even from drink and food, more definitely, "to set apart" for sacred purposes, i.e. "to separate," "devote," "consecrate." It is found in Ex 29:6; 39:30; Lev 8:9; 21:12; 2 Sam 1:10; 2 Ki 11:12; 2 Ch 23:11; Ps 89:39; 132:18; Prov 27:24; Zec 9:16.
(4) `ATarah means a crown in the usual sense. Comes from `aTar, meaning "to encircle," as in war for offense or defense; also actually and figuratively "to crown." Rendered sometimes "to compass." It is used in 2 Sam 12:30; 1 Ch 20:2; Est 8:15; Job 19:9; 31:36; Ps 21:3; Prov 4:9; 12:4; 14:24; 16:31; 17:6; Song 3:11; Isa 28:1,3,1; 62:3; Jer 13:18; Lam 5:16; Ezek 16:12; 21:26; 23:42; Zec 6:11,14; "crowned," Song 3:11; "crownest," Ps 65:11; "crowneth," Ps 103:4. the Revised Version (British and American) translations "crowned," of Ps 8:5 "hast crowned." the American Standard Revised Version prefers to translation "crowning," in Isa 23:8, "the bestower of crowns."
(5) Kether means a "circlet" or "a diadem." From kathar, meaning "to enclose": as a friend, "to crown"; as an enemy, "to besiege." Variously translated "beset round," "inclose round," "suffer," "compass about." Found in Est 1:11; 2:17, 6:8; "crowned," in Prov 14:18.
The two Greek words of the New Testament translated crown are: (1) stephanos, from stepho, and (2) diadema, from diadeo, "to bind round." (1) Stephanos means a chaplet (wreath) made of leaves or leaf-like gold, used for marriage and festive occasions, and expressing public recognition of victory in races, games and war; also figuratively as a reward for efficient Christian life and service (see GAMES ). This symbol was more noticeable and intricate than the plain fillet. Only in the Rev of John is stephanos called "golden." The "crown of thorns" which Jesus wore was a stephanos (woven wreath) of thorns; the kind is not known (Mt 27:29; Mk 15:17; Jn 19:2,5). Luke makes no mention of it. Whether intended to represent royalty or victory, it was caricature crown. Stephanos is found in 1 Cor 9:25; Phil 4:1; 1 Thess 2:19; 2 Tim 4:8; Jas 1:12; 1 Pet 5:4; Rev 2:10; 3:11; 6:2; 12:1; 14:14; plural in Rev 4:4,10; 9:7; "crowned" in 2 Tim 2:5; Heb 2:9; "crownedst" in Heb 2:7.
(2) Diadema is the word for "diadem," from dia (about) and deo (bound), i.e. something bound about the head. In the three places where it occurs (Rev 12:3; 13:1 and 19:12) both the Revised Version (British and American) and the American Standard Revised Version translation it not "crowns" but "diadems," thus making the proper distinction between stephanos and diadema, such as is not done either in the King James Version or the Septuagint (see Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament). According to Thayer the distinction was not observed in Hellenic Greek "Diadems" are on the dragon (Rev 12:3), the beast (Rev 13:1) and on the Rider of the White Horse, "the Faithful and True" (Rev 19:12). In each case the "diadems" are symbolic of power to rule.
There are five uses of the crown as seen in the Scripture references studied, namely, decoration, consecration, coronation, exaltation, and remuneration.
The zer of Ex, as far as it was a crown at all, was for ornamentation, its position not seeming to indicate any utility purpose. These wavelet, gold moldings, used in the furnishings of the tabernacle of Moses, were placed about (a) the table of shewbread (Ex 25:24; 37:11); (b) the ark of the covenant (Ex 25:11; 37:2); (c) the altar of incense (Ex 30:3,1; 37:26,27). The position of these crowns is a debated question among archaeologists. Their purpose other than decoration is not known. The encircling gold might signify gratitude, parity and enduring worth.
The nezer had a twofold use as the crown of consecration: (a) It was placed as a frontlet on the miter of the high priest, being tied with a blue lace (Ex 39:30). The priestly crown was a flat piece of pure gold, bearing the inscription, "Holy to Yahweh," signifying the consecration of the priest as the representative of the people (Ex 29:6; Lev 8:9). (b) Likewise the Hebrew king (2 Ki 11:12) was set apart by God in wearing on his head a royal nezer, whether of silk or gold we do not know. It was set with jewels (Zec 9:16) and was light enough to be taken into battle (2 Sam 1:10).
The ordinary use of the crown. There were three kinds of kingly crowns used in coronation services: (a) The nezer or consecration crown, above referred to, was the only one used in crowning Hebrew kings. What seems to be an exception is in the case of Joshua, who represented both priest and king (Zec 6:11 the American Revised Version, margin). (b) The `aTarah, and (c) the kether were used in crowning foreign monarchs. No king but a Hebrew could wear a nezer--a "Holy to Yahweh" crown. It is recorded that David presumed to put on his own head the `atarah of King Malcam (2 Sam 12:30 the American Revised Version, margin). The kether or jeweled turban was the crown of the Persian king and queen (Est 1:11; 2:17; 6:8).
The `atarah, the stephanos and the diadema were used as crowns of exaltation. Stephanos was the usual crown of exaltation for victors of games, achievement in war and places of honor at feasts. The `atarah was worn at banquets (Song 3:11; Isa 28:1,3), probably taking the form of a wreath of flowers; also as a crown of honor and victory (Ezek 16:12; 21:26; 23:42). Stephanos is the crown of exaltation bestowed upon Christ (Rev 6:2; 14:14; Heb 2:9). "Exaltation was the logical result of Christ's humiliation" (Vincent). The Apocalyptic woman and locusts receive this emblem of exaltation (Rev 12:1; 9:7). The symbolic dragon and beast are elevated, wearing diadema, (Rev 12:3; 13:1). The conquering Christ has "upon his head .... many diadems" (Rev 19:12). See further Tertullian, De corona.
Paul, witnessing the races and games, caught the vision of wreath-crowned victors flush with the reward of earnest endeavor. See GAMES . He also saw the persistent, faithful Christian at the end of his hard-won race wearing the symbolic stephanos of rejoicing (1 Thess 2:19 the King James Version), of righteousness (2 Tim 4:8), of glory (1 Pet 5:4), of life (Jas 1:12; Rev 2:10). Paul's fellow Christians were his joy and stephanos (Phil 4:1), "of which Paul might justly make his boast" (Ellicott). Long before Paul, his Hebrew ancestors saw the `aTarah of glory (Prov 4:9) and the `aTarah of a good wife, children's children, riches and a peaceful old age (Prov 12:4; 14:24; 16:31; 17:6). For Apocrypha references see 1 Macc 10:29; 11:35; 13:39.
William Edward Raffety
thornz (akdnthinos stephanos): Three of the four evangelists mention the crown of thorns, wherewith the rude Roman soldiers derided the captive Christ (Mt 27:29; Mk 15:17; Jn 19:2). All speak of the akanthine (Acanthus) crown, but there is no certainty about the peculiar plant, from the branches of which this crown of cruel mockery was plaited. The rabbinical books. mention no less than twenty-two words in the Bible signifying thorny plants, and the word akantha in the New Testament Greek is a generic and not a specific term. And this word or its adjective is used in the three Gospels, quoted above. It is therefore impossible definitely to determine what was the exact plant or tree, whose thorny branches were selected for this purpose. Tobler (Denkbl., 113, 179) inclines to the Spina Christi, as did Hasselquist. Its botanical name is Zizyphus Spina Christi, It is very common in the East. Its spines are small and sharp, its branches soft, round and pliable, and the leaves look like ivy, with a dark, shiny green color, making them therefore very adaptable to the purpose of the soldiers. Others have designated the Paliurus aculeatus or the Lycium horridum. Both Geikie (Life of Christ, 549) and Farrar (Life of Christ, note 625) point to the Nubk (Zizyphus lotus). Says the latter, "The Nubk struck me, as it has all travelers in Palestine, as being most suitable both for mockery and pain, since its leaves are bright and its thorns singularly strong. But though the Nubk is very common on the shores of Galilee, I saw none of it near Jerusalem." The settlement of the question is manifestly impossible.
Henry E. Dosker
kroo-si-fik'-shun.
See CROSS ;PUNISHMENTS .
kroo'-el, kroo'-el-ti 'akhzar, "harsh," "fierce," chamac, "violence"): There are various uses of the word "cruel" in the Old Testament: (a) "the cruel (deadly) venom of asps" (Dt 32:33); (b) spoken of men of relentless hate: "They hate me with cruel hatred" (Ps 25:19; compare Prov 5:9; 11:17; 12:10; Jer 6:23; 50:42); (c) Job speaks of God's dealings with him as "cruel" and arbitrary: "Thou art turned to be cruel to me" (Job 30:21); conscious of his virtue, yet holding God to be the author of his sufferings, Job is driven to the conclusion that God has become his enemy and is bent upon destroying him; (d) the "day of Yahweh"--a prophetic phrase to denote the time of God's manifestation in judgment--is described as coming, "cruel, with wrath and fierce anger" (Isa 13:9). The word "cruelty" has nearly disappeared from the Bible. In the Revised Version (British and American) it occurs only in Ps 27:12. The King James Version has it in Gen 49:5; Ps 74:20 (the Revised Version (British and American) "violence"); Ezek 34:4 (perekh, "crushing," the Revised Version (British and American) "rigor").
The Old Testament records many acts on the part of chosen individuals and the elect nation which are marked by gross cruelty, particularly when measured by the standards of our own age. Some of these acts are sanctioned by Scripture or even presented as commanded by God, as, for example, the sacrifice of Isaac, the extermination of the Canaanites, the authorization of the avenger of blood and of human slavery, and of retaliation for evil. Some of the deeds performed by Divinely appointed leaders of Israel are characterized by inhumanity. Samuel "hewed Agag in pieces" (1 Sam 15:33). David massacred the Ammonites with great barbarity (2 Sam 12:31). Elijah slew the prophets of Baal (1 Ki 18:40; compare 2 Ki 1:10; 10:25). Some of the utterances of the Psalmists breathe spirit of hate and revenge, as in the so-called imprecatory psalms (Ps 137:8,9; 139:21 f). This has often been a matter of great perplexity to the devout student of the Bible. He has found it difficult to reconcile such practices, which bear the stamp of Divine approval, with the highest standards of Christian morality. It is sometimes urged in justification that these deeds are permitted, but not commanded by God. But this answer hardly meets the facts of the case. We shall arrive at a truer answer if we recognize the fact, which Jesus emphasizes, that the Old Testament religion is a self-accommodation to the low moral standard of those whom it was designed to instruct. This He reiterates in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5:22,28,34), and affirms in His reference to the hardness of the ancestral Jewish heart (Mt 19:8). In the Old Testament we are dealing with the childhood of the world, in which revelation is compelled to limit itself to the comprehension of its subjects. It must speak so that they can understand. It must start with them where it finds them. It must lead them along lines in which they of their own volition can walk, that character may grow step by step. A gradual development of spiritual and ethical ideals may clearly be traced in the sacred records. We must therefore read the Old Testament narratives and interpret their teaching, not according to the standards of our own age, but in the light of the age to which these narratives belong. The spirit of Elijah may not be the spirit of Christ (Lk 9:55). While many of the acts of cruelty and barbarity recorded in the Old Testament are indicative of an age of a low type of morality, yet we must at the same time recognize the fact, that Israel's religion by emphasizing holy living and righteous conduct created an atmosphere favorable for the growth of high ethical ideals. Wherever this religion is seen at its best, as in the teachings of the prophets, it is the mark of the righteous man to treat human life as sacred and to refrain scrupulously from inflicting unnecessary pain. Even the Gentiles shall be brought to judgment for their barbarities and inhuman practices (Am 1:2 f; 2 Ki 25:7). Among the blessings of the Messianic kingdom, predicted by the prophets, is the cessation of war with all of its attendant cruelties and horrors. The Law of Israel also reflected this tendency toward humanity, and many of its ordinances, while seemingly inhuman, really tended to mitigate prevailing barbarity. Instances of such ordinances are those referring to the maltreatment of slaves (Ex 21:20), to the Cities of Refuge (Nu 35:19 ff; compare Josh 20), to rules of warfare (Dt 20:10 f), etc. The extermination of the Canaanites is represented as a Divine judgment upon a morally corrupt civilization (Gen 15:16; Dt 12:30). It is declared necessary in order to guard the Hebrews from contamination by the sins of the Canaanites (Ex 23:32). It is not so far back, that many of the practices that are condemned by the most enlightened Christianity of our day, prevailed universally and were not thought incompatible with Christian civilization. Even our own time needs to secure a more widespread practical recognition of the principles of humanity, kindness and justice, which are professedly the law of the Christian life.
L. Kaiser
krum (psichion, "a little bit"): Occurs only in the New Testament, of remnants of food, scraps. Lazarus desired "to be fed with the crumbs that fell from the rich man's table" (Lk 16:21). "Even the (little) dogs eat of the crumbs" (Mt 15:27; Mk 7:28), "possibly the fragments of bread on which the guests wiped their hands (after thrusting them into the common dish), and flung to the dogs" (Farrar, Life of Christ, I, 476).
kroos: A small earthen vessel or flask, usually for holding liquids: tsappachath; as water, 1 Sam 26:11,12,16; 1 Ki 19:6; it being porous, the liquid is kept cool; also for holding oil, as in 1 Ki l7:12,14,16.
In 1 Ki 14:3 ("a cruse of honey") the word baqbuq, would be better rendered "bottle," doubtless deriving its name from the gurgling sound of issuing liquids. In 2 Ki 2:20 tselochith, is not a jar or flask, but a dish, or platter, for salt or other substances.
In the New Testament a small jar or vial, alabastron, "alabaster cruse" or flask, for holding ointment; not "box" as in the King James Version (Mt 26:7; Mk 14:3; Lk 7:37; compare 1 Sam 10:1; 2 Ki 9:1,3, where "box" in the King James Version is used for "vial" the Revised Version (British and American)).
Edward Bagby Pollard
kri'-ing (zaaq, tsa`aq (and forms), qara', shawa`, rinnah; boao, krazo, phoneo):
Various words are translated "cry," "crying," etc., the chief of which are those above given; za'aq and tsa`aq denote especially a cry for help, from pain or distress, and are frequently used for crying to God, e.g. (za`aq, Ex 2:23; Jdg 3:9,15; Ps 22:5; 107:13,19; Mic 3:4); (tsa`aq, Ex 8:12; 15:25; Ps 34:17; 77:1; Isa 19:20; Lam 2:18); qara' (a mimetic word) has the widest signification, but is often used of appealing to God (frequently translated "call," "called," etc., Gen 39:14,15,18; 41:43; Dt 15:9; 24:15; 1 Ki 18:27; Ps 3:4; 22:2; 27:7; Prov 1:21; Isa 34:14; Jer 2:2, etc.); shawa`, "to cry aloud" (Job 29:12; 30:20,28; Ps 18:6,41; 88:13; Jon 2:2; Hab 1:2, etc.); rinnah, "a shouting," whether for joy or grief (1 Ki 8:28; Ps 17:1; 61:1; 88:2; 119:169; 142:6; Isa 43:14 the Revised Version (British and American) "rejoicing," etc.). Other Hebrew words are 'anaq, "to groan" (Ezek 9:4; 24:17 the King James Version; 26:15 the King James Version); hamah, "to make a noise" (Ps 55:17 the King James Version); rua`, "to shout" (Jdg 7:21 the King James Version; Job 30:5; Isa 42:13, etc.); ranan, "to cry aloud" (Ps 84:2; Lam 2:19); shoa`, "crying" (Isa 22:5); teshu'oth, "crying," "noise" (Job 39:7 the King James Version).
In the New Testament we have boao, "to cry," "shout" (Mt 3:3; Mk 1:3; 15:34; Gal 4:27, etc.); krazo (mimetic, the hoarse cry of the raven), "to cry out" (Mt 9:27; 14:30; 21:9; 27:50; Mk 5:5; Gal 4:6; Rev 6:10; 7:2, etc.); phoneo, "to give forth the voice," "sound" (Lk 8:8; 16:24; 23:46; Acts 16:28; Rev 14:18 the King James Version); anaboao, "to cry out" (Mt 27:46; Lk 9:38); aphiemi, "to let go," "to send away" (Mk 15:37 the King James Version); epiboao, "to cry about" (anything) (Acts, 25:24); epiphoneo, "to give forth the voice upon" (Lk 23:21 the King James Version); kraugazo, "to make a cry, or outcry, or clamor" (Mt 12:19; 15:22; Jn 11:43; 18:40; 19:6,15; Acts 22:23); anakrazo, "to cry out" (Mk 1:23; Lk 4:33, etc.); krauge, "a crying out" (Mt 25:6; Acts 23:9 the King James Version; Heb 5:7; Rev 21:4).
For "cry" the Revised Version (British and American) has "sound" (2 Ch 13:12); "cry because of these things" (Job 30:24 the English Revised Version); "cry out" (Job 31:38; Isa 42:14); "call" (Ps 28:1; 61:2; 141:1); "be blind" (Isa 29:9); "groan" (Ezek 26:15); "pant" (Joel 1:20); "cry aloud" (Mt 12:19); "clamor" (Acts 23:9). Among the other changes are, "moan" for "cry aloud" (Ps 55:17); "sound an alarm" (Hos 5:8); "take your pleasure," margin "blind yourselves." for "cry ye out" (Isa 29:9): "sigh, but not aloud" for "forbear to cry" (Ezek 21:17); "shoutings" for "crying" (Job 39:7); "destruction" for "crying" (Prov 19:18, where we have instead of "let not thy soul spare for his crying," "set not thy heart on his destruction," margin, Hebrew "causing him to die" (muth, "to put to death")); "went up" for "crying aloud" (Mk 15:8, different text); "cry" for "voice" (Lk 1:42); for "had cried" (Lk 23:46), the American Standard Revised Version has "crying."
W. L. Walker
kris'-tal: In English Versions of the Bible the word is probably intended to signify rock-crystal, crystallized quartz. This the Greeks called krustallos, "ice," believing it to have been formed from water by intense cold. Thus in Rev 4:6; 21:11; 22:1, either "crystal" (EV) or "ice" (Greek, krustallos) suits the context. The word rendered "crystal" in Ezek 1:22 (qerach) is ambiguous in precisely the same way (the Revised Version, margin "ice"). In Job 28:17 the context favors the King James Version "crystal," rather than the Revised Version (British and American) "glass" (zekhukhith). Finally, in Job 28:18 the Revised Version (British and American) reads "crystal" for the King James Version "pearls" (Hebrew gabhish; the weight of evidence favors the Revised Version (British and American) in spite of the parallelism suggested by the King James Version).
F. K. Farr