VAULT
According to Herodotus (518 ; cp 91x0) it was the
custom of the Persians to have their wives and con-
cubines present at great feasts. This, however, hardly
illustrates the story of Vashti, for it was evidently by an
arbitrary command of the king, whose heart was ‘ merry
with wine,’ that Vashti was summoned to the banquet.
Indeed, Vashti had made a feast of her own for the
women of the palace (v. 9).
Vashti’s name used to be connected with the Persian
vahista, ‘optimus,’ but, according to a very clever
hypothesis of Jensen, Vashti, Haman, and Zeresh are
pale reflections of Elamite divinities, named respectively
Mashti (or Vashti?), Huniman, and KEriSa (see E STHER,
5 7 ; Jensen, W Z K M 670 ; Wildeboer, ‘ Esther ’ in
KHC 17 173). This view, however, is not very probable.
Ahasuerus (?) and Vashti (?)are as much a couple as Haman
and Zeresh, and both ought to he explained on the same prin-
ciples. Moreover the text of Esther ought to be not less care-
fully criticised thln that of Samuel before any hypothesis as to
the origin of the story is formed. There is no issue out of the
perplexities caused by the book as i t has come down to us.
But revising the text on the same principles as we revise the
text of Samuel we see that (as in parts of Samuel) a story under-
lies the present story of Esther and Mordecai which has a
different geographicalknd historical setting. The Jewish people
douhly represented by Esther (=Israehth) and by Mordecai
(Carmeli=the Jerahmeelite Jews), are in captivity in the land
of the hostile Jerahmeelites (see OBADIAH, # 7 ; LAMENTATIONS,
BOOKOF 8 7 3 . PSALMS $0 zS#)-i.c. the Edomites and
other Aribians, &hose kink is described Ls ‘Ashbur, king of
Jerahmeel and Cush’ (for wn-ipi rim ?inn ‘nN ~ l wn i i i w n x
read ’zk~! h p n : qk ring?). Vashti, therefore, ought to
be a representative of the Asshurite, Jerahmeelite, and Cushite
people, that the nation of the oppressors may, like the uation-
of the oJgressed have double and therefore complete representa-
tion. at the’name Vashti is corrupt is plain; cp VANIAH,,
VOPHSI. Most probably it comes from Asshurith, ‘Asshur
being often w d as a synonym for ‘Jerahmeel Cp MORDECAI,
PURIM. T. K. C.
VAULT ( T W ) , Is. 654 RVmg. ; see TOMB.
VAULTED CHAMBER ( 1 8 ; O I K H M ~ITOPNIKON;
Zupmar), Ezek. 1624. etc., RVW. ; see H IGH PLACE,
5 6. A mound or shrine for illicit worship is -obviously
intended ; but the rendering of 6 and Vg. (after analogy
of fornix) is ‘ without sufficient proof, and needless ’
(BDB).
VEDAN (171). Ezek. 2719 RV. See J AVAN . 5 Ig.
VEIL (VAIL). It is not easy to distinguish between
the veil and the mantle in the OT. As in the East at
the present day, the Hebrew veils were mostly ample
wraps which protected the head and shoulders against
exposure, and sometimes reached the feet. Though
veils were part of the ordinary attire of Hebrew women,
unmarried girls did not muffle their faces, nor did
married Jewesses usually wear veils even out of doors
( I Cor. 115 f.). I n the Talmud we find that only
Jewesses of Arabia wore veils (.!?abddth, 65 a ) to cover
their whole face, the eyes excepted. The bride, how-
ever, veiled herself (cp nudere v i r o ) in presence of the
bridegroom, both before marriage and at the wedding
ceremony (Gen. 2925) ; see M ARRIAGE , 5 3.’ T h e
modern Oriental yashmak, which hangs in a narrow strip
from below the eyes to the feet, was not used by the
Hebrews.
The terms rendered ‘ veil ’ are :-
I. :cZ‘ip/), l’p,Gen. 2465 38 14 rgt, which, as Lagarde (Sem.
24) has shown was not a veil (EV), hut an ample wrap square
in shape. DEL) renders 8ipiu.rpov, a light summer garment ;
cp MANTLE, 0 z [n].
P. $amm&, n?!, Is.472 RV (~a7axdhvppa[BNAQI; AV
‘locks ’) Cant. 4 T 3 6 7 t RV ( . m 6 m ) U b S [BKA] ; AV, RVw.
‘locks ‘$2
3. rZdZd, Vll, Bipprurpov [BnAQr], EV Is. 3 23 ; AV, R V w
.Cant. 5 7 t (RV mantle) ; and
1 On the @*i$h of Gen. 2465, see the first of the Hebrew
terms.
a According to Delitzsch from Jon%, consfnGqerc. Ws read-
ing seems to rest upon a confusion with nnr, ‘be silent ’ (cp in
Syr.).
5247
VENISON
4. micpahath, nngpn, Ruth 3 15 AV (rrepi{wpa [BAL], ow-
86v~ov[Sym.]; AVmg.’ ‘apron,’ ‘sheet,’ RV ‘mantle ’) were all
ample wraps ; cp Is. 3 22 and see MANTLE, 0 2 [3].
5. mass*kah, n?pg, EV Is. 25 7 (perhaps the reading should
be 7POD. a covering. as in Ezek. 28 14:
I, -. . most moderns render
‘ co&g ’ (cp Is. 28 20, EV).
6. The term Z@, &,1 in Is. 257 (EV ‘covering’) is usually
explained as a veil. The figure in this passage is derived from the
custom of covering the face as a token of grief (see MOURNING).
7. re?&i/), &F,Is. 3 19t, is either a soft shawl (EV ‘muffler,’
AVmg. ‘spangled ornaments’), or a fine veil (so Che.). The
root $pi is cognate to i p i (tremble) and the form of veil was so
called from its loose, clinging mater‘h.
8. mp~p6harov,I Cor. 11I j AVmR., EV preferably ‘covering’;
cp MANTLE, 8 2 1191.
The face of the king or other chief was sometimes
covered to hide the divine halo; thus Moses wore a
masweh, nip,, Ex. 3 4 3 3 8 (KdXupFa [BAFL], cp a Cor.
313), with which Dillmann compares stZth, nm, Gen.
4911.2 It will, however, be noted that, according to
MT, Moses seems to have worn his veil only in private,
and to have removed it not only when seeking an oracle
but also when addressing the people. I. A.
VEIL (OF THE TEMPLE). See TABERNACLE, 5
’
5 , and TEMPLE, 5 33.
n>?s,
The words are piriketh. . _ Ex. 2631 etc. ; Kuru-
?rhaupa, Mt. 2751 Lk. 2345. Jerome (in Mt. 27 j x ;
also Epist. 189 ; and again Epist. 1208) affirms that in
Matthew’s Hebrew Gospel he read, not ‘veil,’ but
‘ lintel ’ -superliminare templi ingnita magnitadinis
fractum esse a t p e divisum (also corruisse, also su6Zatum).
Nestle infers that Jerome found, not ngi?, ‘ veil,’ but
i+ ‘capital’
, (of the column supporting the roof; see
C HAPITER , 4), though Jerome less accurately gives
superliminal-e (Expos. 18956, 3 1 0 8 ) . Cp TEXT,
65 n. 7.
VENISON (Fr. venaison, Lat. venatio, ‘ a hunting ’ ;
Heb. Ty, zayid, JVU, ‘ to hunt,’ cp .Ar.
Syr. Taida). The Hebrews, as described by the OT
writers, had already reached the stage of pastoral nomads
when ‘ the hunting which is the subsistence of the ruder
wanderer, has come to be only a n extra means of life’
(to quote Tylor, Anfhropolofl, 2.0). ESALJ (4.v.) is
probably meant to represent nothing more than this ( ‘ a
man acquainted with hunting,’ 1:s yl; d’u, Gen. 2527 ;
cp 2528 273). since later he seems to be himself
possessed of flocks and herds (Gen. 339 ; for Nimrod
see the special article).
As weapons used for this purpose or for driving off wild
animals, mention is made of the how and arrow (Gen. 27 3 Is.
7 24; see WEAPONS, 8 z ) and the SLING (q.v., I S. 17 40). Dt.
145enumeratesamongstthe animals that might be eaten several
belonging to the venison class. These are some species of
fallow deer (‘ayydZ s&, ya&mW; see HART, ROEBUCK),two
kinds o f wild goat &;e GOAT 2 CHAMOIS), the P Y G A R G k 7 . v . )
the Addax?), and the ANTELhPE’(q.v. ; so RV).
One of the Hebrew terms for ‘ provision ’ is actually
reminiscent of the hunting stage ( n r , TFdEh, Gen. 4225
4521 Ps. 13215 []I D!>], Josh. 9 5 [’rani] ; cp the use of
the verb in Josh. 9 12, ‘ this our bread we provisioned
ourselves [an;~:;l] with it hot from our houses’).S But,
although both as a necessity and as a pastime the
pursuit has in general played an important part in the
education and evolution of mankind,4 the Hebrews,
hampered 5 again (see C OLOLJRS, 1 I) perhaps by certain
peculiarities in their religion. after they had passed
through the stage were not often induced ‘ to revert for
amusement to what their ancestors had been compelled
1 The expression ~ 1 5 shows
~ that the outside of the veil
differed from the inside. Cp 1p>l$m, Job 41 5 [IS].
2 In the Talmud Nion, nKiDT) is both ‘ covering ’ and ‘ veil.
3 Elsewhere we find the \Serb hh, KiZk2, used (I K. 47),
and the noun a!>, Zehem (I K. 4 zz 15 21).
4 As to its value in this respect Charles Kingsley’s G l a M u
is suggestive in parts.
6 In view, that is to say, of the struggle of the nations.
5248
 VENUS, TEMPLE OF
to practise from necessity’ (to quote M. G. Watkins,
Gleanings from the iVaturol Histoiy of the A’ncients.
chap. 10). Assyrian,’ Egyptian,% C h a l d ~ a n , and ~ 2. a,?:?, h & i ~ i n z , is the name given to villages which
Persian monarchs, on the other hand, boasted of their
exploits in hunting; the Assyrians and Persians even
maintained private hunting-grounds, called T R ~ ~ & L U O L .
The Greeks and Roinarispursued the pastimevigorously.5
Their writers describe it frequently (Homer, Horace,
Czesar), and in some cases whole treatises were written
on the subject (Xenophon, Appian).
Solomon’s table, it is true, was, we are told, su plied with
species of fallow-deer (‘ajydl, sPbZ, yahnr?iy: see $ART, ROE-
BUCK ); but there is nothing to’indicate that they were taken in
the hunt. We know t h a t in other cases traps were used for the
purpose (see NET, S NARE). In I S. 2620, too, according to
EV we have a figure of hunting a partridge, hut the Hebrew
term is nidaph, ‘pursue,’and in any case the meaning of the
context is not clear (see P ARTRIDGE ; and for the methods of
capturing birds see FOWLING). M. A. C.
VENUS, TEMPLE OF (TO aTspraTioN [AVI),
2 Macc. 1226, AVmg. S e e ATARGATIS.
VERMILION (V&j), Jer. 2214 Ezek. 2314f.
C OLOURS, 9 14.
VERSIONS. See TEXT AND VERSIONS.
VESTMENTS ( ~ $ J , etc.), 2 K. 1 0 2 2 . etc.
DRESS.
VESTRY (n&F ; TW em TOY o i ~ o yM E C e A A h
[BL,]. T O l C €IT1 T O Y M l C e b A h [AI; . . . TOY
AICMOY [Aq. Sym.]). in the phrase ’him that was over
the vestry’ ( 2 K. lo&), is generally supposed to mean
the place where the holy vestments supplied to the
worshippers of Baal were kept ; see DRESS, 5 8 ; J EHU ,
col. 2356. The ancient versions differ ; there was no
fixed traditional interpretation. The moderns have
defended ‘ vestry ’ or ‘ wardrobe ’ by a far-fetched com-
parison of Ethiopic e’ltdh, ‘tunic, coat.’ T h e text
must be corrupt.
Read probably n ? ~ ~ ” . l ~t cp, ‘him that was over the hall’
( E x j . T , Nos. 1899). That there were several ‘halls’ or
‘ chambers’(ni3$h) attached to the Jerusalem temple we know
(Jer.3524 Ezra106 Neh.135,etc.); and from1 S.Yzz(cplr?
@) we gather that close tO the altar on a b&mih, or‘ high place
there was a Zislrkrih, or ‘hall,’ in which those who partook df
the sacrificial meal assembled. It was in such a Zishhih that
the Baal-worshi pers assembled in expectation of a sacrificial
feasts (v. 19). 6 p TEMPLE, $) 24, 32.
This view does justice t o the context, and accounts for @‘s 4
6rri roS o L o v (fieuOaah=,usAOoa is a correction from the later [f]
Hehrew text); that $‘5 did not fully understand n j & is plain
from I S. (see above). wand 3 are liable to be confounded with
n and n ; n may come from n, repeated in error. To correct
”“l?,‘the composition of the (sacred) perfumes,’ or &n,
‘ the ceremonial ’ (cp Klo.), gives a less suitable sense. On the
guesses of the other versions see commentators. T. K. c.
VESTURE (IMATION). Rev.191316 AV, RV ‘gar-
ment.’ See MANTLE. § 2 [17].
VETCHES, WILD
N ETTLES (4.v.).
(h),
Job 307 Rl’W.,
VIAL. I . BQ, p o k , I S . 1 0 1 ; also 2 K . 9 ~ 3RV
(where AV has Box Iq.v.1; +d*6c). Cp also CRUSE.
2. + i d h i , Kev. 5 8 15 7, etc., where RV always BOWL(q.v., 9).
VILLAGE. I . A ‘village’ as distinguished from a
( t o w n ’ or ’ city’ (l’u, ‘ir) is properly >e?,
KEphdr
(Cant. 711 [I.] I Ch. 2 7 z s ) , or l@, k$her ( I S.618 in
combination with ’????, happlrdzi, ‘ village of the
peasantry,’ E V ‘ country village),’ or 1’33 k&hfr (Neh.
62, plur., if L I T is correct ; see C HEPHIRAH). Like
1See Ball, Lighffioi-onrthe East, 1 6 1 3
a See Maspero, The Dawn of Civilisation, 6 1 8
3 16id 7 6 6 8
‘ 4 See ‘Warre-Cornish, Dirt. +f Gk. and Rom. Antig.
napo‘ds‘.YOs.
16id S.V. ‘Venatio.‘
5 Probably it derives its name from the rich dark hue
6 Moo;euwa‘ges 61) suspects that the ‘house’ which Samson
pulled down by l e d n g against its two pillars was the banquet.
ing hall of the temple of Dagon.
5249
VINE
the Arabic kefr, the word enters into compound place-
names--e.g., Chephar-ha-arnmonai ; cp Capernaum.
grew out of the early settlements of nomads, Gen. 25 16
(11 nliw. ?CY&; cp CASTLE, 4),Lev. 2531 (‘villages
[enclosures] which have no yall around then] ’), Josh.
198 (‘ villages which lay around their cities’ ; see
CITY), Neh. 12281: See HAZOR,,HEZRON.HAZERIM.
HAZEROTH.
3. In AV ‘villages’ is now and then given for n)Jj,
6En6th, ‘ daughters ’ - i e . , the dependent t o m s of a
city; N u . 2 1 ~ 5 3(RV ~ ‘towns’), I Ch.223 (so too
RV). C p D AUGHTER.
4. On nix!, &aww6fh,a less distinctly Hebrew term
than 2 , and properly synonymous with it, see HAVOTH-
JAIR, H IVITES.
5. niT:?, p&izith, properly ’ level country.’ RV
renders ’ villages ’ (AV ‘ towns ’) ‘ without walls ’ in
Zech. 24 [8], and in Ezek. 381r Esth. 919 EV gives
See ’ unrvalled villages,’ ‘ unwalled towns.’ nil!? should
possibly be restored for D’vin in 2 Ch. 274 (see FOREST),
unless we hold that it was in conquered portions of the
Negeb (read *@Q. ‘ in the Ashhurite’.) that Jotham,
See like REHOBOAM’(~.Z.).), built ‘castles and towers.’ I n
Esth. ( Z.C. ) the noun pnizizim is rendered in EV ’ of
the villages ’ : cp EV of Dt. 35 I S. 6 18. Some connect
PERIZZITES (q.w.) with this word.
CTO-
6. jk??, pzrc;risUn, too, is conjecturally rendered
‘ villages,’ * villagers ’ by AV and some recent scholars
(cp Moore and Budde) in Judg. 57 11, but by RV, not
less conjecturally, ‘ mlers,’ ‘ rule.’ For Jndg. 5 XI
Robertson Smith in 1892 suggested ’ in the redemption
of Israel’ (see Black, Judges, 42); but more probably
the true reading in Judg. 57 11, and Hab. 314 is o.~ri
( ~ $ 1 ) ; cp 63 Buvarof [B], @ppa~wv [AL], ilvvaa&
(but in Judg. 511 a f i & p ~ v[B], MUXUURY [AL]). So
Cheyne. and (in Hab. Z.C.) Vollers.
7. , p n Hah.‘314
~ AV, ‘the‘head of his villages’(RV ‘of his
warriors’ ; mg. hordes : or, villages’). But see 6.
8. rhpq in NT is uniformly rendered village in RV (Mk.
8 z7-the villages of Cresarea Philippi ; Jn. 7 42-the village of
Bethlehem). In @ it sometimes represents not only n?, ,??,
l y , ”?a, lDD, 1’5?,and 153, hut also even 1‘Y and y p .
It is given as a Rabbinical view that a city, as distinguished
from a village, was a communitywith ten learned men in it-ir.,
a sufficient number to entitle it to have asynagoqne. According
to Furrer (Schenkel, BL 2 12) the modern criterion in Palestine
is the possession of a separate market. In Esth. 9 19 oi K ~ T O C .
KOGVTCS ;v raic p y r p o r 6 h w r v (om. B*), and ot Grrmrapfiivor ZY
whur, xhpp constitute the two categories to one or other of which
eve& Jew is assumed t o belong.
VINDICATOR (s&j), Job1925 RVmg. See GOEL,
and JOB ii. col. 2474.
VINE (IF$, more fully ?!I Nu. 64 Judg. 1314).
EV .. -
Like the name of the grape ( x y ) , the word is common
1. Hebrew to Heb. Aram. Arab. and Ass.-from which
Guidi infers (Deb Sede p r i m i t i v n , etc. 40
f.) that the vine was known to the people
who formed the original Semitic stock. But from the
names for pruning, vintage, winepress, and wine being
distinct in the different languages he concludes that the
primitive Semites were unacquainted with the making of
wine, their original ‘ strong drink’ (~JE;,a word common
to the four languages and Ethiopic) being probably
made from barley.
GJphen (19:) denotes the grape-vine everywhere but in
2 K. 439, where g & z n SEdeh (nib 153)is used of some
...T
plant resembling the vine in form, hut bearing poisonous
or bitter gourds: see W ILD GOURDS. Another word
S.D.
icrik (?lb, Is. 5 2 Jer. 221T) or sirZkZh (qp, Gen.
4 9 1 r t ) seems to denote a superior sort of vine.
of the grapes (cp Ar. Iakira or fakura; Lag. Uebers.
31 f: explains differently). Its grapes were called
5250
 VINE
i e ~ z i k i m(o*p$i@,Is. 168, though RV's ' choice plants ' is
a possible rendering). According to Jewish tradition,
they were very sweet, with almost invisible kernels
kursannim ( o * m p ; see G RAPE, 7). The vine branch
or shoot is called elrn8vZh ( n ? ~ ? ) from
, int to a prune ;
or idrig (IS-,,, Gen. 4010 12 j o e l I 7 t ) , from n b to
'interweave.' ZuZzaZZim (D,$!$!,~ Is. 185) seems to
denote low branches or clusters that lie on the ground.
'The gathering of grapes is expressed by the verb 1x1
(Lev. 255, etc.), the vintage or vintage-season being
hisir (i? Lev.
!?265,, Judg. 8 z t ) ; to prune the vine is
my (Lev. 253f: Is. 5 6 t ) ; the pruning-hook is m a e m ~ n i h
(mnIg). T h e 'pruning of vines' (Budde, Siegfried) is
a more likely interpretation of zZmier (1.1~4) in Cant.
212 than the 'singing of birds' (Del., Konig). T h e
obscure word eimvuth (nm!) in Gen. 4311 is by Frd.
Delitzsch connected with this root, and interpreted as
'fruits cut (from the plants that bear them) ' ; but
Dillmann rightly objects that inr is used only of pruning
away that which is useless : probably the word must be
traced to some other source; Q 3 renders TGY KapaGv.
In Talm. s h e e r (im) = dessert-fruit (grapes, etc.).
T h e Israelites traced the planting of the vine to Noah
(Gen. 910;see Budde, Bib(. Uvgesch. 3 0 6 8 , 407, and cp
a. Biblical N OAH ) : and Biidde thinks that the 'com-
references. fort' spoken of in Gen. 529 refers to the
invention of wine. Noah was not a
dweller in Palestine ; thus the Israelites preserved the
tradition of the introduction of the vine from another
land. Palestine, as described in the OT, was a great
wine-producing country. Joseph (Ephraim) in Gen. 49 22
and Israel in Ps. 808 [g] (cp Is. 5 2 Hos. 101,etc.) are
compared to a vine. Delitzsch, in his charming essay
' T h e Bibleand Wine' (Zviz, 1888,essay 9), sees in the
fact that Jesus compares himself to a vine (Jn. 151),
an allusion to his being the Messiah, the Second David
-which illustrates a passage in the early Christian
Diduch2. T h e phrase to 'sit under one's own vine and
one's own fig-tree ' occurs constantly in descriptions of
a time of peace ( I K. 425 [55] Mic. 44 Zech. 310).
Passages like Judg. 913 Ps. 10415 show with what
simplicity men thanked God for the gift of wine. But
the vine supplied another figure. There were wild vines
-not of a ' genuine' stock (Jer. 221). Israel, when nn-
faithful, is compared to these (Jer. Xc. cp Is. 5 z ) , and
the enemies of Israel are even likened (Dt. 3232) to a
' vine of Sodom '-i. e . , one whose juices and fruit were
tainted by the corruption typified by Sodom (Driver).
C p SODOM,3, n. 2.
T h e vine ( Vitis vinifera, L. ) ' grows spontaneously '
(according to de Candolle, L'Originc, 151 8 ) in W.
3. Natural temperate Asia, S . Europe, Algeria, and
Morocco ; but its spontaneous growth is
history. most marked in the region S. of the
Caspian, and between that and the Black Sea. Its
original home was most probably in Transcaucasia,
though traces of it have been found in deposits of
prehistoric and probably prehuman age in other quarters
-as in N. Italy, Switzerland, and S. France. It has
been cultivated from the most ancient times in W. Asia
and in Egypt ; in the latter country there is evidence
reaching back five or six thousand years. The 'soma '
of the Vedas appears to have denoted primarily a beer
made from grain, but subsequently w i n e : and it is
probable that wine was one of the earliest discoveries of
the Aryan race and that they carried the vine with them
as they migrated westward. Of the condition of vine-
growing in modem Syria a n account is given by Ander-
lind in ZDPV 11160 8 C p also Tristram. NHB 407
5 ,and see W I N E . N. M.-W. T. T.-D.
1 Possibly ni+ in Jer. 6gt has a similar meaning.
2 This phrase does not necessarily imply that it is a native of
these districts.
5251
VOWS, VOTIVE OFFERINGS
VINEGAR (YP'n J be sour,' ' leavened,' Nu. 63 ;
ofoc,Jn. 1929). CP cok. 959 n. 3, 2752, 5309.
VINEYARDS, PLAIN OF THE (D9n7? SJ!),
(9.v.).
Judg. 1133 AV, RV AWL-CHERAMIM
VIOL (Sqa), IS. 5 1 2 AV. See M USIC, 5 2 , 6-9.
VIOLET (n)??), Esth. 1 6 AVmg.; E V 'blue.' See
PURPLE and COLOURS, $ 13.
VIPER (?lq&4, Is. 306 ; E X I A N ~ , Acts283). See
SERPENT, $ I [I].
VIRGIN (nAp&NOC). There is no clear trace of a n
Order of Virgins in the Apostolic Church. T h e four
daughters of Philip the Evangelist [cp PHILIP], who
exercised the gift of prophecy, were virgins (Acts21g).
In I Cor. 725-38 Paul declares that he has ' n o comniand-
ment of the Lord ' respecting virgins : they may marry,
or not marry, without sin. On the whole he is inclined
to recommend for them and for all the unmarried state,
' o n account of the present necessity,' which should
make all Christians sit loosely to the world.
A later age, which valued virginity as a superior virtue,
peopled the A ostolic age with virgins living in community and
presided over t y the Virgin Mary : see, for example Domtitio
M a r k (Tischendorf, Apocal. Apocr. 1861) pp. 96f.; Coptic
Apocr. Gospels, F. Robinson, 1896. But this picture has n o
histprical authorisation, and is simply the reflex of a subsequent
institution. O n the difficultpassage in Ignatius, Smyr? 13,
' I salute . . . the Virgins, who are called Widow5, see
Lightfoot's note ad Zoc. : he is probably right in interpreting it
as ' I salute the Widows, whom I prefer to call Virgins, for such
in God's sight they are by their purity and devotion. [Cp
MINISTKY, 0 41 end.] J. A. R.
VISION (nT.Qo etc. ), Gen. 15 I, etc. See PROPHECY.
VISION, VALLEY OF (?$? ' i or "3, THC
c j u p a r r o c , CWN KX in v. 51 E N a a p a r r i C[EIIWN),
a place called Valley of Hizzaion, from which the
Assyrians were expected to make a n assault on the
fortifications of Jerusalem, Is. 22 I (late heading), 5+.
That Hizzaion is a proper name, and that the phrase
does not mean valley of vision ' (or, prophetic revela-
tion) is generally admitted. According to Dillmann.
some part of Jerusalem is referred to, perhaps the
Tyropoeon, where the fortification may have been
specially weak. This implies the Massoretic division
of the verse, which, however, must surely be wrong
(see Duhm; Marti; SBOT). N o such name a s
Hizzaion being known, it has been proposed to read
-nil? 3; ' the valley of Hinnom,' comparing Zech. 145,
where ~ 9 3( ' valley of my mountains ') and p i n N'J
( ' valley of mountains ' ) may be niiswritten for o!~? N*?
'valley of Hinnom' (see ' Isaiah,' SBOT [Heb.], 112;
Marti).
It is, however, by no means improbable that Is. 22 1-14, in its
original form, referred t o an expected blockade of Jerusalem by
the Jerahrneelites (cp S ENNACHERIB, 5 5). and that ivy" 3 1 1
should be lv$> '38 'the sons of Cushan.' The next metrical
I T
line begins with
11II 21 a Jer. 25
tio? of $Nnm: (Jerahmeel). Such is the position of the un-
decided question res ecting the reference of Is. 22, and t h e
meaning of Valley oP~izzaion.*
6 T. K. C.
VOPHSI ('p?.!; IAB[E]I [BAFL]; Va@Si[Vg.]), father
of Nahbi (Nu. 1314t).
VOWS, VOTIVE OFFERINGS. A vow is a
voluntary obligation solemnly assumed toward God to
Definition, do something not otherwise required,
but believed to be acceptable or influ-
ential with him. The promise may be
either simple or conditional. In the former case it is
usually a pledge to perform at a future date-for ex-
ample, a t the next recurrence of a feast-an act of
worship which is less convenient or suitable a t the
time the vow is made: and the motive may be any
which would prompt man to the act itself, such a s
gratitude to God, the desire to secure his favour, etc.
5252
 VOWS, VOTIVE OFFERINGS
A conditional vow is commonly made in circumstances
in wrhich the urgent need of God's protectioll or help
is felt, as in illness, an attack by the enemy, or for the
obtaining of a greatly desired end, such as the birth of
a child, the increase of flocks and herds, victory in
battle, and the like. In such a case a man solemnly
binds himself, if God does for hini what he wishes, to
do such and such a specified thing for God.
Vows of the latter kind were in ancient religions the
conimon accompaniment of prayer, and were believed
to contribute greatly to its efficacy. T h e transaction
seems to us commercial in even a higher degree than
the familiar motive of sacrifice, Do ut des; this may be
formulated, Dado si deden's. W e have to remember,
however, that man's gift was not conceived as an
equivalent by which the service of God was purchased,
but as a present, just as in similar transactions among
men when an inferior sought the aid of a great man.
The thing vowed might be anything with which it was
conceived that God would be pleased-a sacrifice, a
service, a dotation of gold and silver, houses and lands,
cattle, or persons to God, that is, to the temple. It
might also be an interdict imposed by the maker upon
himself for a time or for life in the use of things other-
wise lawful ; thus fasting, abstinence from particular
kinds of food-as the grape and its products in the
Nazirite's vow-from the wearing of ornaments, sexual
intercourse, etc., w'se often vowed. Such arbitrary
self-denial was thought, like the scrupulous observance
of the similar restrictions imposed by religion itself, to
be a proof of devotion.
The general word for vow is lyz, nPder, @ Ad. For a vow
of abstinence specifically, Nu. 30 employs l!K, l e
!
, issdr, L d r
(@ b p r g p i ~ ) )from
, lp$, 'bind.' The meaning of this word is
especially, clear in Dan. 6 7 r z f : I j, where RV well renders
' interdict ; cp also the rabbinical use of the verb in the sense
of prohibit, and hft. 16 19 I S 18.
The vow, being a solemn promise freely made, was
a most binding obligation ; it had the force of an oath,
with which, indeed, it was frequently associated (see
Nu. 302 Acts23x). Even a rash vow or one which
entailed unforeseen and terrible consequences, like
Jephthahs (Judg. 11 ), must be fulfilled to the letter.
T o break faith with God in such a matter was to invite
destruction. Men, nevertheless, often tried to slip out
of their obligation by subterfuges, or practised deceit in
paying their vows. Malachi (1 14) pronounces accursed
the fraudulent nian who had vowed a male victim and
had one in his flock, but sacrificed a blemished beast.'
The Deuteronomic law enjoins the prompt payment of
vows according to their tenor, for God will strictly
exact it ; it is no sin not to make a vow, but being
voluntarily made it must be fulfilled (Dt. 2321-23 [22-24];
cp I'rov.2025 Eccles. 5 4 J [3J] Ecclus. 1822).
Examples of vows in the OT history are those of Jacob at
Bethel (Gen. 28 20-22 cp 31 13, 35 2-7), Jephthah (Judg. 11 30j:
34-39), Hannah ( I S. 1'11,f 24-28), Absalom(2 S. 157J). Frequent
references in other connections show how important a place
vows had in all periods of religion : see Dt. 12 6 I I ' 7 26 Ps. 22 25
50 14 56 12 61 5 8 65 I 66 13 76 I I 11G 14 18 Prov. 7 14 Is. 1921
Nah. 1 I j Jon. 1 16 2 g Judith 4 14 I Esd. 2 7 2 hlacc. 3 35 9 1 3 3
~ c t s 2 1 2 3% 2 r .
The only laws in the Pentateuch on the subject of
vows in generaL2 Lev. 271-29 and Nu. 3 0 , are both
Nu. 30 determines who can make
2' Laws: Z i n d i n g vow, with especial reference
to the vows of women (see M. N8dErim). If a
nian makes a vow or imposes upon himself by an oath
some abstinence, he must not 'profane his word,' but
strictly fulfil his obligation. The vow of a widow or a
divorced woman is similarly binding (a. IO) ; but the
vow of an unmarried woman in her father's house, or
of a married woman in her husbands, is null without
his consent, which, however, is assumed to be tacitly
given, if, being cognisant of the vow, he did not oppose
1 Cp the Arab substitution of gazelles for sheep in payment
of a vow, S ACRIFICE , 8 8.
2 On the Nazirite's vow. see NAZIRITE.
VOWS, VOTIVE OFFERINGS
her. If a woman marries while under a vow made in
her father's house, the subsequent consent of her
husband is necessary; if he annuls it she is free. If
the husband lets the vow pass in silence when he first
learns of it, but afterwards prevents its fnlfitment, he
makes himself guilty of the breach of obligation. T h e
law does not say how it is with the vow of a minor son
in his father's house, or with that of an Israelite slave.
Lev. 27 treats of the conditions under which persons
or property that have been given to God in fulfilment
of a vow may be redeemed. An animal of the kinds
from which sacrifices are made to Yahwe is made ' holy '
by the vow ; no redemption, substitution, or exchange
is allowed; if such a thing is attempted both animals
become ' holy ' (a.gf. ). On an unclean animal a value
is set by the priest, and it may be redeemed by the
payment of this sum with one-fifth added (vu. 11-13).
Human beings are redeemed at a price fixed by the law
in accordance with their age and sex (cp Jos. Ant. iv. 4 4 ) ;
a boy between one month and five years old, five shekels,
a girl, three ; from five years to twenty, twenty shekels
and ten respectively ; from twenty to sixty a man is
valued at fifty shekels, a woman at thirty; after sixty
this value fell to fifteen and ten. If a man was too
poor to pay the price on this scale, the priest fixed a
sum within his means. If a man consecrates a house
to Yahwk by a vow, the priest estimates its value, and
the owner niay redeem it on payment of six-fifths of the
sum. In the case of hereditary lands which revert to
the family in the Jubilee year, the value depends on
how far off this term is. T h e basis is, on an acreage
seeded with one homer of barley, fifty shekels for the
whole period, that is. one shekel for each year the
tenure has to run. The surtax for redemption is, as
in all other cases, one-fifth. If not redeemed, or if
sold to another man, the reversion is cut off, and the
land ceded to the priests.' Purchased land, in which
the buyer has really only a leasehold till the next Jubilee
year, is estimated by the priest.
Some things cannot be consecrated to God by a vow.
either because they already belong to him, like the
firstlings of animals fit for sacrifice (Lev.2726), or
because they are abominable to him, as the hire of a
religious prostitute of either sex (Dt. 2318)--a kind of
votive-offering frequent in that world.
A vow of abstinence of a peculiar kind is that of the NAZIRITE
(q.u.), for which there are special laws in Nu. 6 1-21.
A man might not only vow to ' hallow ' some object
to God (@?e?, hikdfq,he might devote it (oqni?, he&'rim)
by his vow.so that it became +trerem (see B AN . and cp
Nu. 21 2 ) . What was so devoted became intensely 'holy,'
that is, God guarded his rights in it most jealously ; it
could neither be sold nor redeemed. Lands or animals
so dedicated belonged irrevocably to the sanctuary, that
is to the priests (Nu. 1 8 14 Ezek. 44 2 9 ) ; men thus devoted
must be put to death (LEV. 2728J ). T h e last provision
can hardly be an actual provision for a private ban.
Vows, like oaths, were frequently made rashly and about trivial
matters; indeed, they often became a mere form of speech to
fortify an asseveration or a declaration of purpose, as ' I vow, if
I didn't see a snake RS big as the beam of a wine-press (JT.
Niddrim, 32). With a lurking scruple such as among us gives
rise t o minced oaths, men in N T times said &inrim Randh, or
the like, instead of +-6dn The rabbis discouraged h , practice
by requiring the fulfilment of unadvised vows, and declaring the
clipped formula equivalent in force to the proper word. They
had to distinguish, however, between vows the fulfilment of
which, though inconvenient, was a proper punishment for the
rash undertaking, and such as ought not to be kept, and to pro-
vide some way of absolution for the latter (M. N2ddnm, 3 I
9 1 3 ) . In this endeavour they were led into a casuistry not
always accordant with sound ethics. The example given by
Jesus in Mk. 71oJ Mt. 154,f of the way in which they nullified
the law of God by their traditions has been discussed under
C ORBAN (q.v.).
The commonest vow in all ages was doubtless a sacrifice, and
votive offerings were probahly the commonest of private sacri-
~~~
1 The rovisions of the law are not clear. see the commen-
taries, $or fhe rabbinical elaboration & these rules see
M .dv,i&..
 VULGATE]
fices. The votive sacrifice might, according to the terms of the
vow be a burnt-offering or a peace-offering or both combined
and’consist of any kind or number of sachicable animals, 0;
simply of an oblation. The rites were those appropriate to the
species of sacrifice and the victim (see S ACRIFICE ). a votive
peace-offering was subject to the ordinary rule tha; the flesh
’ should be eaten on the day of the offering or the next not to the
narrower restriction of the thank-offering (fJdrih) ind to the
general requirement of ceremonial purity in those k h o partook
of the feast (Lev. 7 168). Nu. 15 3 8 prescribes an oblatlon with
every victim in the case of votive as a i other sacrifices. Offer-
ings of wine and oil were also made in the fulfilment of vows (see
SACRIFICE. # 31 a).
iM. N&f&im, ‘Arrikin, cp also .?Fkrilzm, 46-8;the works on
biblical archaeoloev.
I_.esoeciallv Saalschiitz. Mosaisches Recht.
1358 Nowack, Arch: Ben:
.
3. Bibliography. zinger hebr. Arch. articles ‘ Gehibde
in PR)EPl, Riehm, &BA, Schenkel, BL,
‘Vow,’ Hastings, DB. G. F. M.
VULGATE. See TEXT AND VERSIONS, 5s 21, 59.
VULTURE. Of the four species of Vulturida3
WAJSJDERINGS, WILDERNESS O F
described by Tristram from Palestine, three ( G y p
fulvus, Neophron percnopferus, and Gypaetus barbutus)
are treated under the herdings ( I ) E AGLE [RVmS
‘ Great Vulture ‘I, ( 2 ) G IER -E AGLE and ( 3 ) O SSIFRAGE.
T h e fourth species is the black vulture, VuZtur monachus.
the only livrng representative of its genus. This bird
inhabits the countries surrounding the Mediterranean
and extends eastward to China. It is not common in
Palestine, and does not seem to be mentioned in
O T or NT.
4. The ‘vulture’ (”E,dri’dh)in AV of Lev. 11 14t is in RV
rendered ‘kite.’ Its identification can only be conjectural ; but
see K ITE.
5. The ‘vulture’ (7;: dayyrih, ?I)’:, dayyath, another form of
n ~ ?above) of Dt. 1413 (om. Di. after Sam. e), Is. 34 1st
(2A+r) is also rendered K ITE in RV. See above.
6. We ’uyydh, Job287, AV (RV ‘falcon), but elsewhere
KITE (q.v.). A. E. S.

WAFERS. I. p’lz,
r@ik, Ex. 292, EV, etc., I Ch. in I K. 6 5 J , etc., of a roomwall in I 5.1811 2025, etc., cp
Housr, # I.
23 29 RV. See BREAD, 8 2 (c).
5. 799, Jar; Gen. 49 zz Ps. 18 30 [zglt, I S. 22 30 ; in Jer. 5 10 for
83
2. nn‘??, !a#p&zih, Ex.1631t + p i s ; see BAKEMEATS,
n’Ii$, niYd is suggested-i.e., rows of vine-plants ; see Ges.-Bu.
(3), where, however, nn.33 is to be read for ‘ Fp! ...
B~AD.’
E.v., naw, and cp Duhm, ad Zoc.
WAGES. See, generally, T RADE AN D C OMMERCE, 6. !7@, KdtheZ, Cant. 2 gt of a house-wall.
5 83 ( e )4. T h e words are :- 7. N;?t@y, ’uffamd’,Ezra 5 3 9t. Word ofuncertain meaning;
I . l??, SEkdr, piuO6s, merces, of the hire of a servant (Gen.
YO 32 Ex. 2 9 Dt.24 15 I K. 520 [6] [@a om. p~u86vl etc.), the
see Ges.-Bu. who suggest ‘GebZlk’-i.e., ‘timberwork.’ @ B A L
reward ’ of priests (Nu. 1831), passage-money (Jon. 1 6 vaCAov), has xopqyt’av ; ll I Esd. 6 4 has i v urdflv rahvv. See Marti,
etc. KHC, ad loc.
2. l:?, iPker, Prov. 1118 Is. 19 I O ; on the latter passage see WALLET ( I T H ~ A ) , Mt. 1010RV, AV SCRIP (4.v.).
S LUICES.
WANDERINGS, WILDERNESS OF. I T h e Wilder-
3. n;gwD, mkkireth, pm96s, merces, Gen.2915 Slg 41
Ruth2;;1 .
ness’ (ham-midbdr, 123?33)was, in all periods, the
4. n>~s,#Z‘uZZrih, pro&, opm, Lev. 19 13, etc.
standing phrase among the Hebrews
1.
,wilderness., for the scene of that epoch in their
5. p ~ d 6 s merces,
, Jn. 4 36, etc. See above I.
6. 6+6vcov, sl@endium, stigendia, I Esd.’456 I Macc. 32:
14 32 Lk. 3 14 Rom. 6 23 I Cor. 9 7 2 Cor. 11 8 (cp &+ov ‘meat
historv %-hich immediatelv meceded
~.~~ 2 ~~~~

the settlement in Canaan; in addition to the Hexa-

/ .~
Tob. 2 z [b+bp~prov ~ 1 7 8 [om.
, 4 b$oaoiqpa Judith 12 I, &#or= teuchal narratives see, e..&, Am. 210 Hos. 135 Jer. 26
27 Nu. 11 22). Ezek. 2010 Neh. 921 2 Ch. 249 Ps. 1074. Undefined by
WAGON. I. i&, ‘ZgdZdh; see C HARIOT, 5 2. reference to particular places, the Hebrew term is a
2. Dr8u, pabbim, Is. 6620, EV ‘litters,’ but better, wide one. Agreeably to its etymological signification,
following @ (dv Xapwjvars [+pr6vwv]), ‘cars’ such as ‘ the place where (cattle) are driven,’ it denotes country
are drawn, for swiftness, by mules (cp Pind. Pyth. inhabited by nomads, and in actual O T usage includes
494f: d m j v ~;) cp Ass. pumh (from subbu), a car drawn the country stretching SW. of Canaan to Egypt, to-
by mules, as distinguished from narkabtu, a wagon gether with the Sinaitic peninsula, SE. to Arabia and E.
drawn by horses. At the same time, the ’cars,’ like to the Euphrates. (SeeC ATTLE , $ 5 , D ESERT, $ 2 [3].)
the ‘ chariots and horses, ’ in Is. (Z.c. ) are very possibly T h e topographical problem, with which alone the
due to an editor ; the original text gave the names of present article is concerned, is to discover the limited
the peoples whence the Jews were to be brought ; see district within this larger area of
2. wilderness to which the nomadic life
Crit. Bib. 49. problem‘
In Nu.73 3 : nhy, EV ‘covered wagons’; but this is merely
of the early Hebrews was referred in
the memory or imagination of the various biblical writers.
a syn. for 0 3 : ‘cars.’ Cp l W X Tg. Is.4922 Nah.28 (the T h e difficulties and uncertainties attending the solution,
queen sitting in a ~393). which probably will never be wholly overcome, are due
3. Xl, rkkeb, Ezek. 2324 AV, RV C HARIOT (g.v.). mainly to the uncertainty in many parts (but chiefly in
4. 5&, galgal, Ezek. 2324 RV, Ezek.2610 RV, AV RVmg. the case of J and E) of the analysis of the sources, our
‘wheel,’ cp WHEEL. insufficient acquaintance with the actual historical con-
On the ‘place of the wagons’ I S. 17 20 etc. RV, AV ‘trench,’ ditions (cp S INAI ), and the paucity of trustworthy
see C AMP, $ I. identifications of particular sites. T h e literature of the
WAIN, THRESHING (p\lD),Job4130 [I.] RV. subject, which is extensive, needs to be used with
See A GRICULTURE, 5 8 p. extreme caution on account of the genpral neglect of a
critical employment of the sources and the ut&eriusuf-
WALL. I. On npin, $imd;h, see FORTRESS,passim.
ficiency-in some cases also, the thoroughly unphilo-
a. $5, h Z Z (dh),a surrounding wall, defined by Jews as logical character-of the reasons for the identifications.
q i n p i e . , ‘alittle wall’(seeBDB), a&&; see FORTRESS, [Textual criticism. too, may have to be applied more
0 5, end, col. 1557. methodically. 3
3. ll;, grid&, is rendered ‘ wall ’ by AV in Nu. 22 24 Ezra 9 9 The sites of the Egyptian starting-point of the Exodus,
Is. 5 5 Ezek. 42 7 11 Hos. 26 where in each case RV or RVmg. of Sinai, and of the intervening stages, are discussed
prefers ‘ fence. See HEDGE, 2 and cp the place-names Geder, 3. siteof elsewhere (EXODUS. S INAI). W e are here
Gedemh, Gederoth, Gederothn, Gedor. RVmg. suggests gadesh. more immediately concerned with the district
‘walls’ for ‘ hedges,’ nhl3, in Nah. 8 17, in which the people are said to have wandered
4. Y‘?, Kir, of a town-wall in Josh. 2 15, etc. : of a house-wall for forty years between the first abortive attempt on
5255 5256
 WANDERINGS, WILDERNESS OF
Canaan from the S . and the final successful attack
from the E. For this the most important site is
K ADESH (4.n.); long a matter of almost hopeless dispute,
it is now, by general consent, identified with 'Ain-Kadis
( 5 0 m. S. of Beersheba), which was visited by Seetzen in
1807 (Reisen durch Syn.en. 348[1859]), and then by
Rowlands, who first identified it with Kadesh (Williams,
H o b City, 1464$), and by Clay Trumbull (Kudesh
Bnrnea [1881]), who has elaborately and successfully
vindicated the identification.
Now, what relation does Kadesh bear to the wilder-
ness of Wanderings? In P, where the case is simplest,
*' Fph
Kadesh is the stage reached immediately
before Mt. Hor (Nu. 2 0 ~ 227 1~4 Dt. 3251
ant1 P i n Nu. 201-13). Apparently, there-
fore, it was not visited before the fortieth year-Le.,
the end of the nomadic period. For, according to P,
the sentence of forty years wandering was given in the
wilderness of Paran and was to be carried into effect in
the same wilderness (Nu. 12166 131-326a 1435), whereas
Kadesh is in the wilderness of Zin (Nu. 20122, cp 3336),
which is distinct from the wilderness of Paran (Nu.
133 21). Doubtless, the fortieth year was originally
mentioned in Nu. 201 (cp 3 3 3 8 ) , and was subsequently
omitted for obvious harmonistic reasons. In P the
whole people in the fortieth year moved as the spies had
done a generation earlier out of the wilderness of Paran
into the wilderness of Zin to Kadesh.
From the foregoing representations all the remaining
narratives differ ; for all these, in spite of other differ-
ences among themselves, agree in associating Kadesh
with the beginning of the forty years' ' wanderings.
In the combined narratives of JE-and probably also
in both of the originally separate narratives J and E-
~. In JE, Kadesh is the place whence the spies were
despatched (Nu. 1 3 2 6 , from to Kadesh' ;
c p 3 2 8 8 ) and, presumably, where the condemnation
to the forty years' wandering was pronounced (Nu.
1433), where the people abode (oyn ~ w i ) ,and where
Miriam died and was buried (Nu. 201 6), and whence,
a t the close of the period, they made their request to
pass through Edom (Nu. 2 0 1 4 8 ) . 2 In brief, Kadesh
was the goal of the people after the Exodus and their
visit to Sinai, their headquarters while they were shep-
herds (ryyi) for ' forty years,' and their point of depart-
ure for the final attack on Canaan. Cp also Judg. 11 16.
In D Kadesh is the goal of the people after leaving
Horeb (Dt. 119, cp 9 2 3 Josh. 1 4 6 J ) ) , the place whence
the spies were despatched (Dt. 120-24 Josh.
6. In D. 147),and the scene of their condemnation
to a prolongation of the nomadic life (Dt. 1 3 4 8 ) .
There they abode for an indefinite period, not, however,
exceeding a few months (Dt. 21, cp 7 14) ; but the main
part of the period--thirty-eight years-was spent in
compassing Mt. Seir (Dt. 21 14). Moreover, according
to the only natural interpretation of Dt.214. Kadesh,
once left, was never revisited ; there is no suggestion
here (nor anywhere else) of a second visit to Kadesh
after absence.
Thus in J E Kadesh is the (apparently) permanent
centre, in D the starting-$oint, and in P the$nnZ stage
of the nomadic wanderings which intervened between
the defeat of the Hebrews on their first attempt to
conquer Canaan from the S. and the commencement of
1 Nu. 20 22 has been genera1:y assigned to P in its entirety.
Carpenter, in the Oxfwd Hexateuch, assigns clause a to E. If
this were certain which it is not (see Gray in Zntemut. Crit.
Cam.), it would shll be clear that 20 226-29 in P, as in the present
compilation, was preceded by P's story of the sin of Moses and
Aaron at Kadesh ; cp 20 24 with v. 23.
I t must suffice merely to draw attention to the theory
recently advanced by Steuernagel (Die EinwandPnrng der
GvucZ<titiscken Stiimmcn, 1901) that in J one section of the
people (the 'Leah' trihes, according t o his denomination) actu-
ally made their way into Canaan from Kadesh whereas in E
the 'Jacob' trihes, leaving Kadesh at the b&inning of the
nomadic period s ent their years of wandering in the deserts
Eurt of the Jbrfan and the Arabah. [Cp EXODUS i., 8 6,
T RIBES , 5 13$]
5257
that definite march which led to the actual conquest
from the E. a generation later.
W e must now consider what hints the various narra-
tives contain for the closer definition of the district in
,. sinai tO question. JE contains no reference to
in JE.places which directly serve to define the
district ; for Hormah is not mentioned
as a place in the wilderness of Wandering, but as a point
connected with a definite attempt to gain an entrance
into Canaan from the S., and all the other places referred
to in J E are stages in the movements ( I ) from Egypt to
Sinai, ( 2 ) from Sinai to Kadesh, which preceded the
nomadic period proper, and ( 3 ) from Kadesh to the E.
of Canaan, which succeeded it. For the first series, see
EXOLXJS, i. $5 IO^ T h e second consists of Taberah
(Nu. 113). Kibroth-hattaavah, and Hazeroth (Nu. 1 1 3 5 ) .
T h e identifications which have been offered of these sites
have little more to recommend them than that they
agree with a particular theory of a route from the spot
identified as Sinai. In the onlycase where the similarity
of the modern name ( ' A h el-Hadra= nisn ; so Robinson,
Palmer) appears to furnish an independent reason for
the identification, this circumstance is far from con-
clusive, for names like Hazeroth were frequent (cp
NAMES, 9 105). The third series concludes with places
8. To E. of which are obviously on the E. of the
Arabah--' the wilderness before Moab
Canaan. toward the sun-rising ' (Nu. 21 IO), the
valley of Zered (Nu. 21 n ) , the other side of Arnon '
(Nu. 21 13), Beer, Mattanah, Nahaliel, Bamoth, ' the
valley that is in the field of Moab '-Nu. 21 16-20, cp
further 21 2 1 8 ; for details reference must be made to
the several articles. An isolated fragment, apparently
of E, in Dt. 106-8 preserves the names of four places-
Beeroth-Bene-Jaakan, Moserah, Gudgodah and Jot-
hathah-which were probably stages in the earlier part
of the march down the W. of the Arabah ; but in the
absence of identification, we cannot speak with certainty.
Indirectly and negatively, however, the district of
the nomadic period is. within broad limits, thus defined
9. fn,JE. The country to the N. of Kadesh
implied to have been effectually held by
for JE. IS other peoples' (Nu. 1439-45 ; cp 2'. 25 1329
-to the NE. by Edom-cp Nu. 2016 ; see more fully
Buhl, Gesch. der Pdomiter, 22-26, and EDOM).T h e
wanderings, therefore, in J E are conceived as taking
place from Kadesh as a permanent centre over an in-
definite part of the wilderness stretching to the s. and
W . of that place-in other words, over the desert of et-
'Tih. and more immediately over that part now held by
the 'AzHzimeh.
In D, as in JE, Taberah and Kibroth-hattaavah are
-
stages on the iournev from Horeb to Kadesh (929): I
' Hazeroth in Dt. 1 1 is either different
I .
lo.D'snarra- from the Hazeroth of JE. or else the
+<..A
"LIT.
passage in question ha; ceased to be
intelligible (cp Dr. ad Zoc.). D chiefly differs from J E
in making the scene of the wanderings for the greater
part of the period (thirty-eight years) distant from
Kadesh, but immediately bordering on Edom. T h e
command in Dt. 23 appears to be referred to the close
of the period, and to have immediate reference to the
final attack on Canaan ; consequently, although the
punitive wanderings extended up to the brook Zered
(Dt.2146) on the E. of Edom, we mnst conceive the
greater part of the period to have been spent on the W.
borders of Edom. Removing from Kadesh at the
beginning, the people are found at the close of the
period at the SE. end of the Arabah ( D t . 2 3 ) . ( I n
attempting to arrive at D's view, Dt. 106f. must be
disregarded ; the verses form an isolated fragment
out of relation to D's other statements ; cp Dr. ad Zoc. )
1 Thus much it seems safato affirmof JE. It is unnecessary
here to discuss at length the analysis of the several sources as
between E and editors, for which the Commentaries must be
consulted'
5258
 WANDERINGS, WILDERNESS O F
When we turn to P we have to distinguish between
the general narrative and the summarising chapter,
Nu.33.
I n the narrative, the Hebrews journeyed from Sinai
to the wilderness of Paran. Here they encamped,
ll. p,s n ~ a hence- the spies were despatched, and
hither they returned; and ' i n this
wilderness ' (Nu. 14 35) the punitive
wanderings took place. On the boundaries of the
wilderness of Paran, see GEOGRAPHY, 7. The re-
maining places in p's narrative appear to be referred to
the final year. These occur in this order : wilderness
of Zin (Nu. 201), Kadesh, Mt. Hor (2022), Oboth, Iye-
abarim (2110), plains of Moab (221), pointing to a
northward movement (Paran to Kadesh) followed by an
eastward (to the plains of Moab); and the latter move-
ment was in all probabilityregarded as being direct across
the N. territory of Edom (cp We. C H 110. Buhl, Gesch.
23, Gray on Nu. 21rr), not, as in J E (e.g., Nu. 214), or
D (Dt. 23 S), by means of a march round the S. end of
Edom ; for although the site of Oboth is uncertain, and
Iye-abarim unidentified, yet the latter certainly lay, as
its name indicates, on the E. of the Arabah (cp A BAKIM).
Thus, the main narrative of P, like J E and D, contains
no topographical details of the scene of the wanderings
proper. The district suggested by P is more southerly
than in J E , less easterly-i.e., less definitely associated
with the borders of Edom-than in D.
I n Nu. 33 the point of view is different. W e have
here a succession of forty places a t which the children
of Israel encamped, between the time
Is* list' when they left Rameses and the time
when they arrived at the Fields of Moab. Probably
the number has been fixed at forty by artificial selection,
to equal the number of the years of wandering ; although
the compiler clearly does not intend us to suppose that the
people tarried at each place just a year, for seven of the
stages clearly belong to the fortieth year (cp v. 38).
T h e interpretation of the chapter must, to some extent,
vary with our estimate of its historical value, and that,
in turn, will depend on our general view of the antiquity
of the priestly strata of the Hexateuch. One at any
rate-and the chief-of Dillmann's arguments in favour
of the antiquity of the itinerary is quite inconclusive (see
below). Starting from the view that the chapter is a late
compilation, the following points must be noted : ( I )
It is compiled from more than one of the literary strata
of the Hexateuch ; for it contains some names (e.g.,
Pi-hahiroth, wilderness of Zin) peculiar to P, others
unknown to him, but occurring elsewhere-e.g., Kibroth-
hattaavah ( J E , D), Ezion-geber ( D ) ; ( 2 ) it also draws
on an otherwise unknown source, for seventeen of the
places are mentioned nowhere else ; ( 3 ) it is dominated
in its representation by P, for, like the main narrative
of E', it makes Mt. Hor the death-place of Aaron (con-
trast Dt. 106J) and places the wilderness of Zin=
Kadesh immediately before Mt. Hor ; on the other
hand, between Hazeroth and Kadesh, which are im-
mediately connected in J E , this list inserts eighteen
stages.
This being the case, the one striking divergence from
P (claimed by Dillmann in favour of the high antiquity
of the list) is all the more remarkable,
13. Its rela- and probably contains the true clue to
tion to his the view of the period underlying the
narrative. chapter. The wiZderness of P a r a n , so
prominent in P , is not mentioned i n the list. This will
be entirely accounted for, in complete accordance with
the evident purpose of the list, which is to name, not
large districts, but definite camping-grounds, if we assume
that the stations mentioned between Sinai and Kadesh
are conceived to have lain in the wilderness of Paran.
Thus, the compiler derives from the other sources such
places as are there naturally referred to the forty years
between Sinai and Kadesh-viz., from J E Hazeroth,
Kibroth-hattaavah, and the four places mentioned in
5259
the fragment Dt. lO6f: ; Ezion-geber from D, and
thirteen places mentioned only in this list from some
sources unknown to us. Granted this single assump-
tion, the view of the compiler is found to be in com-
plete accord with P-thus m.3-15 contain the stages in
the straightforward march from Egypt to Sinai ; vv.
16-36 give the names of the camping-grounds during
the forty years of punishment, the names of the
individual places being substituted for that of the
general district-Paran ; zm. 37-49 describe the march
from Kadesh to the plains of Moab, and this, as in the
main narrative of P, is apparently across the N. end of
Edom, not round Ezion-geber on the S. border. With
a recognition of a double tradition as to the route of the
final march, the old difficulty occasioned by a com-
parison of Dt. 28 1 0 6 8 with Nu. 333037, which was
met by various unsatisfactory hypotheses (such as that
there was a second Ezion-geber near Kadesh, or a
backward and forward movement from Ezion-geber to
Kadesh, or that Nu. 3336b-41a originally followed
immediately on 30a) falls to the ground. Ezion-geber
was considered by the compiler of the itinerary to have
been merely a camping-ground during the nomadic
period, not a stage in the final march from Kadesh to
the E. of Canaan.
The question whence the compiler of this chapter
derived the otherwise unknown names can only be met
14. Its origin, by conjecture. Possibly it was from a
now lost written source; but it is, per-
haps, more probable that they are names of places known
in his own day as belonging to that region. That the
names (or at least the great majority of them) are genuine
names of places, there seems'no reason to question ; and
if, as is far from unlikely, they are names of caravan
stations (Masp. Hist. Ancienne, 2475, n. I ) given by
travellers, but never used by the inhabitants of the dis-
trict, the failure to identify the sites would be accounted
for (cp Doughty, A r a b i a Deserta, 149). It is, further,
quite possible that Alush and Dophkah (a. 13), stages
in the movement from Egypt to Sinai, and Zalmonah
and Punon (a. 421, stages in the movement from
Kadesh to the E. of Canaan, are only accidentally
absent from some of our present sources in which
they originally stood. That the eastern traditions had
little or nothing to say of the places connected with
the wanderings, is merely one side of the more general
silence as to the period. In Nu. between the incident
of the spies (13f.) at the beginning and the events at
Kadesh (201-21) at the end of the period, but five
chapters intervene. Two of these (15 19) contain miscel-
laneoiis laws wholly unrelated to the period, and the
remaining three (16-18)relate the revolt of Korah
(Dathan, and Abiram) and the laws which were the
outcome of it. But whether even this incident was re-
ferred to this period in the sources, or only by the
editor, it is impossible to decide.
In conclusion, some of the general features of the
country may be mentioned. I n JE, as we have seen,
Kadesh is the permanent centre. This
16' harmonises with J E s view of the punish-
ment as a postponement of the possession
of the richer country of Canaan rather than the infliction
of positive hardship. The people, for thek unbelief,
are to remain as they had been-nomads ( o y i ) . That is
all ; the punishment is not aggravated by their being
condemned to a peculiarly barren tract of country.
For Kadesh ('Ain Kadis) is a singularly fertile and
attractive oasis ; cereal crops even, in small quantities,
can be raised in the neighbourhood. T h e Wady 'Ain
el-Kudeirat, to the W., with its important well, is also
fertile; less valuable, but also worthy of mention, are
the themd'il or shallow pits of water in the WHdy
Kasaimeh, situated still farther W. Southwards and
westwards, whither according to JE the Hebrews must
have wandered, stretches the desert of et-Tih; this,
according to the description of Palmer (Desert of Exodur,
5260
 WAR
186-2288), is an ‘arid featureless waste’ marked by
scanty lines of vegetation along the shallow wadies, but
for the most part waterless. T h e ground is hard and
unyielding and covered with small flints, and only in
spring, after the rains, becomes covered with grass ; cp
also Seetzen, Reisen. 8 4 8 8
Thus, the discovery of the true site of Kadesh and
the literarv analvsis of the Hexateuch have brought - of Israel-which geographically stood so central to westem-
light a very noticeable difference
16. Conclusion. of to general remesentation.
,. In the
earlier traditions embodied in J E , the Hebrew nomads
had as their common centre a large and fertile oasis in
the neighbourhood of two other fertile valleys and a
vast roaming ground southwards and westwards, barren
for most of the year, but, as is usual in these deserts,
abounding with grass in spring. On the other hand,
the greater part of the time in D, the whole of it in P,
is spent away from this fertile centre on the arid and
barren plateau described above.
Guthe in ZDPV,188 j, pp. 1 8 2 8 ; Lagrange, ‘L‘itin6raire des
Israelites du pays de Gessen aux bords du Jourdain,’Rm.
bibZ.;pue 9 (19m) 273-287. On the literary
17. Literature. analysis: the relevant works of Dillmann,
Wellhausen, Kuenen, and Driver, should he
consulted ; Bacon’s Tnj% Tyadifion of the E<odus is especially
worthy of attention for his careful attempt to discriminate J and
E : the frequent uncertainty in the analysis of these two sources
may be seen by consulting the analytical tables in Holzinger’s
E i d . in den Hex. On the site of ‘Ain Kadis (Kadesh) and on
the character of this and the neighbouring valleys, see Clay
Trumhuil, Kadesh Barma (which also contains a very full
index of the literature), Seetztn, Reisen durch Syrien, 343-48,
and on the character of the desert of et-Tih, E. H. Palmer,
Desert of fhe Exodus, pt. ii. chaps. 1-5.
[Cp among other illustrative articles, KADESH I : MAKHE-
LOTH hl<lSES I 4 ; hfOSERAH ; NAHALIEL ; NEBO[MOUNT],
s 2 ; PARAN; kEPlllDIM; RIMMON-PAREZ
; SIN; SINAI ; ZIN.]
WAR. T h e ordinary word in Hebrew for ‘ war ‘ is
G. B. G .
it&??,mi@Emih; to ‘fight’ or ‘carry on w a r * is
@I!!, nilhnm (nif‘aZ), U??, +i62’, 312, &&rad (lit.
advance to war,’ followed by 5e 5u
or i f the object),
nQ& 3&, ‘aid miZ&imiih, etc., ‘ to advance to
war ’ is also expressed by 3& (with k’g, $, or p). T h e
ordinary Greek equivalent is ~ b h e p o s ,~ o h e p e i v .
Palestine and all its adjacent land bordering on the
Mediterranean. includine Tvre. Sidon. and Bvblus
1. Palestine (Gebal), ;as called by the Babyi0no-s
a theatre F y r i a n s (mat) Martu or Amurri, or, in
its northern Dortion. mat Hatti. and bv
Or war.
the EevDtiais Rtnu (see W M M As. 21.
Euv. 147). All this-&ktry stood id a position of great
strategic importance in the mutual relations that sub-
sisted between the Euphrates and Tigris lands on the
one hand, and the Nile territory on the other. For
Palestine possessed a fairly well-watered and fertile belt
of hills and plains extending from the Lebanon mountains
on the N. to the el-‘Arish stream on the S. Conse-
quently Canaan became the natural highway for the
trading caravans ((>en. 3728 I K. 1015) that passed
from N. to S. or from SW. to NE. (see T RADE ). It
would also be the most fertile route for the Egyptian
a r m y as it moved to the NE., or for the Assyrian army
as it advanced to the SW. to attack Egypt along its
short vulnerable frontier defended by frontier fortresses,
N. of the Gulf of Suez. For the empire on the Nile,
on the one hand, and the empire on the Tigris or on
the Euphrates, on the other, were, to adopt the language
of modern politics, the two first-class powers, prot-
agonists in the drama of Western-Asian history, whose
mutual relations overshadowed and dominated all other
political interests and combinations among the minor
Western-Asian states. Unless this controlling factor
be kept clearly in view during the larger part of the
regal period, the history of Israel in its external aspects
can be but imperfectly understood. For a time-e.$. ,
in the days of David and Solomon-the power of Egypt
or of Assyria may suffer decline, or lapse into quiescence,
5261
WAR
and the Hittite states or Syria (e.g., in the 9th cent.),
or Israel itself, may come into temporary prominence,
but this is only a passing phase. T h e more permanent
and dominating factor, to which we have referred, is
nevertheless ever present and reasserts itself.
No land therefore felt the pulses and tremors of war more
acutely thin the plaik and mountains inhabited by Israel. Of
this the prophetic oracles bear abundant witness. The prophet
Asiatic movements-could not but be deeply interested in foreign
politics. Hence the earliest prophet of Judah whose oracles
have come down to us in separate collections (Amos), as well as
the latest of the closing years of the monarchy (Jeremiah), uttered
his Maiiid on foreign peoples. No other land was better situated
as a watch-tower for the inspiredseer. Probably no other country
.
on the earth‘s surface has heen more freauentlv traversed bv ,
arniics or hac ofre1lr.r rewundcd IO the shock of battle ur sutlcred
greziirr hardhlripi (rum the rawgei of war. Bclgium ha\ Lccn
called the ‘cock-pitof E u r o p c ’ f r ~ m t l i r d n y ~ o f L o u i ~ X I ~ . ; i n d
Marlborough to those of Napoleon and Wellington. But in a
far truer sense during the millenniums that separate Thotmes
111. from the ake of the Saracens, Palestine has been the cock-pit
of Western Asia.
It was at Eltekeh (AltakE), not far from Ekron, that
the power of S E N N A C HERIB (p.3.) recoiled from the onset
of his southern enemies, and it was on the fatal field
of Megiddo that Pharaoh Necho slew JOSIAH(g.n. ) who
resisted the endeavours of the Egyptian monarch to
capture the spoils of the defunct Assyrian empire. The
Palestinian towns, Samaria, Jerusalem, Ekron, Ashdod,
and Lachish, were regarded by the Assyrian kings as
outposts on the path of the invader of Egypt, whilst the
empire on the Kile, on the other hand, would naturally
regard with apprehension their possession by a foreign
foe. It is difficult to over-estimate the strategic im-
portance of Palestine.
The close vital bond that existed between the clan
__
or tribe and the clan or tribal deity profoundly affected
2. Re,igious the ancient Semitic conception of war.
‘ Religion,’ as Wellhausen says, ‘ was
significance
.e patriotism.’ Thus war against a foreian
Or war’
nation, like other nationai acts, was 0 2 v
undertaken under the favour or sanction of the patron
deity or deities.
Thus the inscriptions of the Assyrian monarchs preface
the annals of a campaign with phraseology like this :-
‘ I n my fourth campaign AGnr inspired me with con-
fidence: then I summoned my mighty forces. .. .’
(Sennacherib’s prism inscription [Taylor cyl. ] col. iii.,
42. Cp Judg. 11 29. ) Kings in all their public functions,
whether of building temples or conducting wars, like to
describe themselves as under divine favour and guidance.
Sargon opens his cylinder inscription by describing him-
self as b k n u Bel iSakku na’id A h niSit inL Anim u
Dagan, ‘Bel‘s officer, exalted priest of A h , favourite
of Anu and Dagan.’ Cp also Nimrud inscription I.
On the other hand, Sargon’s enemy Merodach Baladan,
son of Jakin, king of Kaldu, is described as being under
the influence of an ‘evil demon’ &aZh limnu),’ and
‘showing no fear for the name of the lord of lords’
(triumphal insc. 122). The Rassam cylinder of ASur-
bani-pal continually recites the names of A h - , Sin,
SamaS, RammRn, Bel, Nebo. IStar of Nineveh, IStar of
Arbela, Nergal, and Nusku. In fact, the king (or his
tablet-writer) seems possessed with a nervous dread of
offending any deity by omitting his name. Doubtless
in all these cases the magic potency of the name operated
in the recital.
IStar was the Assyrian war-goddess (Jastrow, ReL of
Ba6. nnd Assyr. 83, 204 ; Driver, ‘ Ashtoreth‘ in
Hastings’ DB 1168). The Canaanite war-deities, ac-
1 It may here he noted that the deity of a defeated nation
became relegated into the position of a demon, like the Titans
overthrown by Zeus. I t is to be observed in this connection that
the Hebrews called the deities of the Gentiles SZdim (O*l.@ or
demons (Dt. 32 17 Pr 10637, see DEMONS, $5 2, 4), and we meet
with several of their names as the demons of later Judaism-e.g.
ReSp6 is the flamedemon, the old Canaanite flame-deity ReSeph’
the ReSpu of the ancient Egyptians (Baethg. Beill. 5 0 Wiede:
mann, ReZ. Aeg. 83, and cp the present writer’s article ‘bemon
in Haetings’ DB). Beelzebub is the most conspicuous example.
5262
 WAR
cording to Egyptian data, were the goddess ‘Anat
(represented as armed with helmet, shield, and lance,
and in her left hand a battleaxe) and the god ReSeph
(armed with helmet and lance). See Wiedemann,
ReZig. der dten Aegypter, 83. T h e warrior Shamgar
was Ben ‘Anat ; see Baethgen, Beitrap, ~ Z J , Judg. 3 31
5 6.
The Moabite stone yields us other parallels (see
MESHA).
Chemosh, national deity of Moah says to Mesha, ‘Go, take
Neb0 against Israel.’ This time i; is Yahws, national deit of
Israel, who suffers. His vessels (?) are dragged before $e-
mosh, and Chemosh drives the king of Israel out of Yahag, 1Z.
14. 18f: h high place is made for Chemosh because he had
saved Mesha from all his foes, and had caused him to see his
desire on all them that hated him. In former times when Omri
reigned over Israel Moab w a s op ressed because Chemosh was
angry with his land (1. 4J). %he biblical parallels to this
language are very close both in Judges, Samuel and the earlier
Psalms-e.g., Ps. 60, which may contain, as Edald supposed, a
Davidic fragment. (Cp M L S H A ; see also Wi. GI 2 204f:)
The name Israel may not improbably have originated
with the early Hebrew battle-cry of the desert ‘ E l
fights’ ; and the cry ‘for Yahwb and for Gideon.’ and
‘ the Sword of Yahwb and of Gideon,’ are the echoes of
old Hebrew battle-cries. All Israel’s victorious wars
were therefore wars of Yahwb. H e was called in com-
paratively early times nix;: ,858 n i v , ‘ Yahwb, God of
Hosts.‘ The view of Wellhausen, Smend, and others,
that this phrase originated with the prophets of the
eighth century, is hardly probable. The conception of
Yahwe as an atmospheric deity is obviously ancient,
and the designation of the Hebrew god as Lord of the
heavenly, as well as the earthly, armies is in full accord,
Judg. 5 zo (Deborah’s song). That Yahwb was closely
identified with Israel’s wars is clearly shown in Dt. 204
Josh. 10 I I Ex. 15 3, etc. Like other Semites the Hebrews
inaugurated war by sacrifices. This was said to conse-
crate war (n& ai??, &ida’?f mil&imdh), Mic. 3 4 Jer.
6 4 cp Josh. 3 5 % Hence the burnt-offerings at the open-
ing of a campaign (Judg. 620 26 20 26 I S. 7 9 13 IO). T h e
sacrificial pieces sent round by Saul to the Israelites
were probably intended not simply to inaugurate a war
against the Ammonites ( I S. 117) but also to unite the
warriors into a holy league of war under Yahwb by a
covenant. Every war against a common foe thus tended
to weld the scattered clans into a unity, and this union
was cemented by the rites of sacrifice. Moreover, in
war-time, in seasons of great anxiety or strife, special
piacular sacrifices would be offered. In times of special
danger a human victim might even be sacrificed. Of
this we have a remarkable example in z K. 327. which is
the more significant as it reveals the Hebrew dread of
its potency. (On the Hellenic belief in the efficacy of
human sacrifice see WRS ReZ. Sem. ( 2 ) , 402f.,and n. 5 . )
In early Hebrew warfare the leaders would always be
accompanied on the field of battle by the priest-sooth-
sayer with the ephod and sacred lot, or, as in the early
Philistine campaigns, with the ark of God( I S. 43f: 14 18f.
2369f. 3075). What is probably meant by the use of
his.ephod in divination by the priest-soothsayer is that
the sacred lot was used in the presence of the plated
1 Judg. 7 18 20. Moore regards the introduction of in
the form given in ZI. 20 as due to a gloss.
2 This use of the Hithpael d?cp;; shows that warriors conse-
crated themselves for war just as they would for the performance
of a religious rite. This idea seems to underlie Is. 13 3, and
Benzinger in P R E R would connect with this the ancient Semitic
custom of sexual abstinence which prevailed among the Arahs ;
WRS R c l Sein.@),455. It is in this sense we should understand
z S. 11 6f: ; Uriah refuses to come to his wife as long as the ark
of God and the army of Israel are on the field. Evidently there
was a taboo on sexual uncleanness in war-time. Hence the
strict camp-regdationswith regard to uncleanness in Dt. 23 io-14.
These were manifestly old Taroth based on the conception that
Yahwi: was present in the camp (v. 14). Probably this is the
underlying motive of Dt. 20 7. It is not easy, however to follow
Schwally (Semif.KnepaZteri.) in his interpretation ;hat in the
other cases mentioned in Dt. 20 5J the individual was believed
to be specially exposed to demons.
5263
WAR
ephod image which gave the procedure divine sanction.
Wellhausen reminds us (Heid.(zj,132, 136f.) that nearly
all the clan chiefs of the Kuraish consulted lots before
they marched on their expedition to Badr, though re-
quested by Abu-Sufisn, whom they sought to rescue,
not to wait to consult lots. Similarly, though with more
elaboration of detail, the Assyrian ruler questioned the
deity before definitely entering upon a fresh expedition,
all possible contingencies being enumerated, so that
there might be no loop-hole of escape, just as in a
lawyer’s deed.1 A s Yahwb. Israel’s national deity, was
identified with the people, and especially with the national
act of war which was undertaken in his name and under
his auspices, so the booty, including the human captives
a s well as the cattle, belonged in a very special sense to
him. This is evidently the underlying principle of the
@Yem, which surrounded the objects captured in war
with a sacred ring-fence which forbade their appropria-
tion for human uses. This explains Samuel’s action in
slaying Agag in I S.157-33, the whol’e passage viewed
from this aspect being exceedingly instructive.
The language of D. 18 is exactly parallel to that of the stone of
Mesha‘, ZZ. 14f: 32. In the latter case Mesha devotes to AStar-
Kemosh (2. 17, ;mninn) the entire population of Nebo, both men
and women. The inscription makes it clear that this means
wholesale slaughter (cp Josh. 6 17 ; see BAN). This tradition of
ancient Semitism even persisted in Hebrew legislation. Dt. 7 2
20 ‘3.17. however, limit its application to Canaanite towns which,
near the close of the seventh century, practically meant nothing
hut the maintenance of an old formula. Women children, and
cattle were permitted to live and be divided as sioil of war (see
S IE G E , end, and cp Nu.31 7f: Josh. 8 2 27J Judg. 21 II~:).
The negotiations which precede a declaration of war
are set forth in fuller form in Tudg. 1112-28 I S. 11 1-10 I K.
Thk negotiations took place b y
3. Prelimin- 202-11.
aries of waT. word of mouth through messengers (Judg.
11 12 I K. 202). Proverbs or parables
might be emploj-ed ( z K. 149) I K.20 11). Proceedings
of this kind are regulated in Dt. 20 IO$ ; but we have
no precise information as to the form in which war was
declared. Probably the cessation of,negotiations would
be the indication that war was in preparation.
( u ) Provisioning of troqjs.-On this subject we have
very slight information. The methods consisted in the
4. Pre~aratioasrough and ready ones of providing
sufficient for the sustenance of the
for war’ armv for a brief mace until it entered
i I ~ ~~~
the enemy’s territory ; each family, household, or local
clan sending provisions sufficient for its own warriors.
Of what these consisted we may gather from I S.l i 17.
K d i or roast (parched) corn was the usual diet of
workers who led an out-door life (Ruth 2 14) and there-
fore of soldiers (cp z S. 1728) ; and to this would be
added curds and cakes (‘rounds,’ nh+ Judg. 8 5 ) ofun-
leavened bread ; 2 see B READ and MILK. In one case
(Judg. 20 1.3)we read that a special corps, about one-
tenth of the army, was told off for the express purpose
of supplying the army with necessaries. These could
be furnished without difficulty in ordin,uy circumstances,
to an expeditionary force at a short distance from
its base. Rut when the territory of the enemy was
entered the simple method adopted was that of un-
limited spoliation of the crops and fruit-trees, including
the palm-groves and the vines, in the country through
which the army passed (cp Is. 1 7 ) . T h e Assyrian army
was specially destructive and left a wide tract of
desolation behind it. Is. 7 20 compares it to a ‘ razor
1 See Knudtzon’s Assyr. Cehete an den Sonrengoff, where
examples are given of prayers of this kind addressed to &ma:.
An excellent illustration is quoted by Jastrow, Re1. Bu6. 334f:
See also ‘ Soothsaying ’ in Hastings’ DB.
2 Also round cakes of figs-summer figs dried into cakes, and
used as an article of consumption, called &b&zh ( 1 S. 30 19 c p
25 18’ see FRUIT, 4 7)-as well as raisins (simmnk; see FRUIT,
5 4) Ghich were also made into cakes ( ’ & k h ; see FRUIT, P 5).
Moreover the grape juice which came from trodden clusters
was boiled down to a syrup called ‘honey,’ in modern Arabic
dibs (see FRUIT, 8 3 : HnNEv, 8 I [31). This may have been the
hone which Barzillai bestowed on David and his warriors (2 S
17 zgy; see Whitehouse, Heb. Antipilies (RTS),I O Z J
sa64
 WAR
hired' by Yahwk for the infliction of his chastise-
ments (cp Is. 1691: ). Even the flocks and herds were not
spared (Jer. 5 15-17). Israel's practice was in reality the
same in the spoliation both of sheep ( I S. 159) and of
fruit ( 2 K. 3 IS), the trees being cut down partly for the
timber, which could be tnrned to account (see S IEGE ),
and partly to deprive the enemy of their use. This
practice was forbidden in the Deuteronomic legislation
(Dt. 20 19f:); but it was recommended by Elisha to Israel
in the war against Moab ( 2 K. 3 19).
(6) M u d e r i n g 1
6 troops.-Troops were summoned in
early times by the blowing of the trumpet or war-horn
whereby the clan warriors were rallied together (Judg.
327 a S. 2 0 1 : cp I bfacc. 351).1 An alarm of war was
usually sounded in this way, and was the function of the
watchman (y, TCpheh). Compare Ezekiel's use of this
metaphor for the prophet's vocation in 332-11. Frequent
messengers were sent if the forces were to be summoned
from a large district ( I S. 117).
( ( Z J Spring-time would be the natural season chosen
for beginning a campaign. The annual expeditions
B. Varied recorded by Shalmnneser 11. probably com-
details. menced a t that time. T h e reasons are
obvious, and have been partially indicated in
the previous section ( 5 4n). Troops on the march-
especially in a hostile territory-were sustained by the
crops and other fruits of the earth. Winter, to say
nothing of its climatic rigonrs, was the time when the
earth was bnre of subsistence for man. ' By the close of
the month 'Ii2ri (EthBnim in the old Hebrew-Canaanite
calendar) the troops would betake themselves to their
homes. 'Thus in a S. 11I ' at the return of the year,
when the kings march forth' (cp I K. 2020-26) does not
mean the beginning #of the year in the old pre-exilian
calendar-viz., EthBriim or Tiki-but about the time of
the spring months.
The expression ?I?$ W B in 2 K. 1310 cannot he cited in this
connection since the passage should probably be emended, as
Kittel suggests, into ?$a
n!$ Y?I(? 9 t h t '(bands of Moabites)
used to inwade the land yearly.'
( 6 ) Scouting was necessary in order to ascertain the
strength and position of the enemy ( I S. 264 Judg.
1 24 7 1.1: Josh. 2 1 , f , d , o~ h ? n - ? p ~; cp S PIES);
or strict inquiries would be made by the leaders
of the army of those whom they chanced to meet ( I S.
3011).
( c ) The camp (nn;,mafzdneh) was carefully guarded,
since it formed the base of operations (cp I S. 3024). W e
have very few details to guide us as to its character or
shape. Nu. 2 would lead to the conclusion that it was
square; but as this passage is late (belonging to a
considerable P section) it should be cautiously used.
The Egyptian camp was, however, four cornered. - 1891)has shown to be worthy of credence in the main
See Erman, 530-a vivid description (see, further,
C AMP).
Probably the camp was round like the encampments of the
Bedouins (cp TENT). It is hardlypossible to draw any particular
inference from the ?nakd,h y p , of I S. 17 20 26 5. The word is
found only in I S.in this particular sense of a 'waggon-laager.'
Probably it would in many cases be fenced in with stones, like
t h e ha:&, 7y9, of the nomadic tribes (Gen. 25 16) for purposes
of protection. Dwelling: in booths must have largely prevailed
in the time of David, and the language of Uriah the Hittite
(.S. 11 11) shows that this was certamly the case in time of war.
The camp was guarded by sentinels, who bad three watches
( J u ? ~1. 19 I Macc. 12 a?). To the rules for the maintenance of
purity i n the camp (Dt. 23 10 f: Nu. 5 I-.+), we have referred
alrencly (p 2, n).
The arms or weapons used in warfare would vary
. considerably a t different periods of
6. Accoutre- Israel's history. In the early nomadic
and stage of the nation's development the
Other appli- armswould consist of thespear or lance,
Of war. &kith ( n m .-:) , a wooden shaft with a
bronze or, in later times, an iron head (see SPEAR).
1 The trumpet was also used in sounding a halt or a return
(a S.2 28 16 IS 20 22).
5265
WAR
W e also read of the smaller RCd5n ( p a ) , or J AVELIN
[T.v.] ( I S. 1 7 6 4 5 ; also a Babylonian weapon, Jer. 6 23
5 0 4 2 ) and of the rimah (ngi, difficult to distinguish
from the n*in; see SITAR). The SWORD ( q . ~ . )hh-ed ,
(xv), would be fastened to the girdle, and we likewise
find in use the dagger, Zdza6 (IC>; Judg. ~ z z ) so , called
from its glittering blade or point. The bow (see
W E A P O S S , 5 2 ) and the S LING (4.v.)were also employed
as weapons of oftence, particularly by the Benjamites
(cp z S. 122 I S. 2 O z o f : ) . The use of the bow by the
Josephite tribes is clearly indicated in Gen. 4923 f.,c p
Ps. 789. The use of the sling is specially connected
with the Benjamites whose left-handed slingers became
famous (Judg. 2 0 1 6 , cp S LING). That the tribe or
Judah also possessed slingers is evident from I S. 1740
etc., and the constant presence of slingers in Assyrian
warfare is certified by the figures on the monunients
(see S IEGE ). They were specially formidable in sieges,
and operated with the Israelite forces with potent effect
against the Moabite stronghold, Kir IjarZleth. In
early times we read little of defensive armour. The
S HIELD ( q . v . ) in use was the smaller and simpler mU@z
(j;?, d u d s ) employed to defend the bowman on the
chariot (cp CHARIOT, 9, and fig. 7). Neither chariots
nor horsemen, however, were used till the time of
Solomon. The shield was probably carried only by
the more important warriors ( 2 S. 121). The B REAST-
PLATE (9.3. ) was likewise ararity in ancient Israelite war-
fare and, like the bronze H ELMET ( q . ~ . )would , be the
privilege only of the chiefs ( I K. 2234). Probably the
Israelites were among the most backward among Semitic
peoples in adopting these accessories of combat, and
the story of David's proving the armour provided by
Saul probably reflects old tradition and prejudice ( I S.
17 38 f: ). The ordinary warrior wore only the si?nZah
(see M ANTLE , 5 2, I ) , which displayed the blood-stains
of battle (Is. 94). Even Joab merely wears the Zthis
( z S . 208 text restored by Klostermann). W e may
therefore assume that in the e'vlier period of Israel's
history, when the nomad clans were establishing their
position on the hills of Canaan, all their fighting-men
were light-armed. As soon, however, as they learned
the arts and methods of the Canaanites and Philistines
who inhabited the plain, the distinction began to arise
between the light-armed (whose weapons would be the
spear, bow, sling, sword, and smaller shield) and the
heavy-armed, whose accoutrements were the larger
shield (Sinnih, mr, Bupebs ; see S HIELD ), resembling
that of the Assyrians, as well as the cuirass (sirycn, p)
and the helmet. According to the statements of the
Chronicler, which in this case McCurdy (Bzpos., Nov.
facts, it was Uzziah who first provided his army with
helmet and breastplate ( a Ch.2614), to what extent is
uncertain. Previously they had belonged to the captains
or chieftains only.
It is not easy to determine how the Israelite forces in early
times were shod. But it seems fairly probable that they wore
the ordinary sandals consisting of soles of leather or wood tied
under the feet by thongs (Gen. 1423). From Isaiah's vivid
description (527) as well as from the portrayal on Assyrian
monuments, we gather that the soles were firmly and strongly
made and the back was protected by leather, but the toes and
upper part of the foot were bare covered only by the thongs
that were bound firmly and tightl; across. Not improbably the
Hebrews had by this time (740.700 B.c.) learned the value of a
strong and serviceable military shoe, and the Hebrew word scdn
used by Isaiah in 9 4 1 is probably a loan-word from the Assyrian
Stnu. See SHOES.
It is by no means easy to ascertain a t what time the
wheeled battering-ram of the Assyrians(Assyr. arumntu,
fupP) was first employed by the Hebrews. Probably
it was quite.unknown to Israel until the ninth century,
when it was employed by Assyria against the Syrian
towns in the N. See SIEGE.
1 Regarded, however, as post-exilic by Hackmann and Cheyne.
5266
 WAR
I t has been pointed out already (see CHARIOT) that
one powerfully determining factor in the advance of
., Tactics. Israel's military accoutrements and tactics
was the great change brought about when
the people ceased to be a band of hardy warriors armed
with spear and bow who sallied forth from their moun-
tain fastnesses, and became a disciplined force that
waged aggressive wars upon the plain. I t was the life
and death struggle with the Philistines that first
welded the Israelite clans into some semblmce of unity
under Saul, the representative of the hegemony of
Benjamin, and subsequently under David of Bethlehem-
Judah. The Philistines taught the Hebrews some
severe lessons from the time of the destruction of Shiloh
down to Saul's tragic overthrow at Gilboa The
Hebrews were able to hold their own with wonderful
skill and persistence when the fighting was in moiintain
passes like that of Micmash ( I S. 145f: ) or in the forests
of Ziph ( I S. 2314) or Ephraim ( 2 S. 186), or when
sudden night attacks were made (Josh.10gf: Judg.
75J.): or rocky citadels stormed ( z S. 5 6 J ) ; but their
inability to forge their own weapons placed them a t a
great disadvantage ( I S. 1319J), and their irregular
guerilla tactics were utterly a t fault when the Philistines
managed a t Aphek to concentrate immense forces around
Saul (whose strength was weakened by David's defec-
tion), and to drive him from the open plain of Jezreel
(where the methods of attack employed by Jonathan
could not avail) into his last forlorn stronghold on Mount
Gilboa.
The mountainous regions, where chariots and horse-
men could not operate, afforded the best ground for the
irregular tactics of the Israelites. Even as late as the
time when the dynasty of Omri reigned (9th cent.),
Israel's God, YAW&,was regarded by the Syrians as
god of the hills ( I K. 20 23).
A change, however, begins to be apparent in the reign
of David, whose wars of conquest led him beyond his
own borders and who was seconded by one of the ablest
and most energetic generals that the Hebrews ever
possessed, from the days of the Exodus to those of Judas
the Maccabee. What Hannibal was to Carthage in the
latter end of the third century, Joab was to David
throughout his stormy reign in the tenth. W e have
already seen (see SIEGE)that it was Joab who first
taught the Israelites the regular methods of reducing a
fortified town ( 2 S. 20 15). Nevertheless, the equipment
of Israel must still have remained primitive, for horses
and chariots were not employed, and even the leader
Absalom rides upon a mule ( z S. 189). In the reign of
Solomon Israel began to enter into fuller intercourse
with foreign peoples, and the dynasty of Omri united
Israel closely with Phcenicia, and was able to wage suc-
cessful wars with Syria and Mesha, king of Moab. Omri
and Ahab were capable generals, and the strategic
instinct of the former marked out Samaria as his royal
fortress-citadel. Omri's name was dreaded by the
Moabites, as the stone of Mesha clearly testifies (1. 4 J ) ,
and became permanently identified by the Assyrians
with the Ephraimite kingdom long after his dynasty
had disappeared (see O M K I ) . Chariots and horsemen
were now a recognised part of Israel's war-equipment,
and in the Syrian coalition against Shalmaneser 11. (as
we learn from his monolith insc. col. 291) Ahab figures as
Hadadezer's (see B ENHADAD, 5 z ) most powerful ally,
furnishing a contingent of 2000 chariots and 10,000
men. Probably Ahab had brought Israel to a level of
military efficiency fiilly equal to that of any other
Palestinian state, evidenced by his brilliant victory at
Aphek over much superior numbers ( I K. 2O27f:). I n
the last fatal battle of Ramoth Gilead Ahabs value is so
highly esteemed that the word of command goes forth
among the Syrian ranks that he must be slain at all
costs. See A HAB , § 8.
T h e term mn'u'r&kdh ( ~ I I J F ,I S. 1 7 8 I O etc., 2 3 3 )
and the phrase am)^] q?g, 'drab [mil@mdh] (Judg.
5267
WAR
2023 22 30 33 I S. 4 2 1721j, show that in comparatively
early times the fighters were drawn u p in line.' Some-
times we read that they were disposed in three separate
divisions (Judg. 7 16 20 I S. 1111). This seems to have
been a favourite tactical arrangement of forces, and it
was adopted by David against his son Absalom with
complete success in a country of wide extent covered by
forest ( z S. 182).
The Hebrews remained throughout their history
without a navy manned by their own sailors. The
geographical configuration of the sea-coast of Palestine
S. of Tyre, with its almost utter absence of harbours,
made the sea a strange elenienL2 Naval warfare was
therefore unknown to them. For even their rivers
were insignificant, and thus we never read of river
expeditions like those which proceeded up the Kile, or
of such naval battles as those which were waged by
Rameses 111. in which he repelled the hordes of bar-
barians (who had defeated the Syrians and the Hittites)
from their descent on the mouth of the Nile by sea
(Erman, 540). It is true that Phcenician vessels
were utilised by Solomon ; but this was not for military
purposes. On the other hand Sennacherib (like Xerxes
more than two centuries later) employed Phoenician
ships and sailors in his expedition to Elam in 697 B.C.
A vivid relief, now in the British Museum, exhibits a
Phcenician galley armed with shields and propelled by
two banks of rowers (bas relief from Kuyunjik). In
the ninth century B.C. Shalmaneser 11. describes in his
annals how he crossed the Euphrates on boats of sheep-
skin (ina elippPni 5a ma5ak tabsi ; a cp ASSYRIA,col.
3 5 6 ) ; but such details are entirely foreign to tXe military
annals of Israel. C p SHIP.
When a e come down to the second century B.C. \!e
are brought into contact with Graeco-Asiatic ci\ ilisaticn
and its military methods. I Macc. 6 gives us a vivid
description, garnished with some luxuriance, of the war-
fare and equipment of king Antiochus.
The conquests of Alexander had extended to India and
Pyrrhus, in the preceding century, had made Italy familia; with
t h e sight of Indian elephants in warfare. The army of Antiochus
advanced against Judas the Maccabee in the phalanx formation.
A thousand men armed with coats of mail and bronze helmets,
accompanied eagh elephant. The number of troops of Antiochus
that were engaged is computed at ~ m , w ofootmen and zo,noo
cavalry and 32 elephants ' trained for war.' 400 horsemen were
detailed for service around each elephant. Each elephant
carried a wooden tower 'strong and covered' and 'bound fast
with cunning contriva&es ' containing 32 warriors besides an
Indian, probably the driver who managed the elephant. The
remainder of the cavalry, amounting to 4wo men, were placed
on the wings for the protection of t h e phalanxes. The whole
army covering the hills and the plain moved with precision.
One elephant was believed by Eleazar, surnamed Avaran, fourth
of the Maccahan brothers, to carry king Antiochus himself.
It towered above the other animals and was protected by royal
breastplates. Eleazar daringly broke through the prorectmg
gh?lanx, crept beneath the elephant, stabbed it, and was crushed
y its fall. Cp E LEPHANT.
( a ) T h e conquerors were welcomed home with song
and dance. Of this we have several examples in the
8. Accompani- literature of the OT ; Ex. 15 and Judg.
mants of w&l. 5(Deborah's song) are songs of triumph
and thankseivine after victorv. I S.
1 8 6 5 gives only the brief;efrayn of the song of the
maidens who greeted Saul and David (cp Judith 161J
I Macc. 424). Of such a character is Hannah's song
in reality ( I S. 2 [cp col. 29651). Similarly Esarhaddon
says (PrirmZnscr. col. i., 53) : 'With singers (sammur2)
and playing on lutes I entered Nineveh.' See fig. 25
1 The procedure of battle even in the later regal period
cannot be described in any but general terms a<we have no
materials for an accurate and detailed portrayd. Perhaps the
following description @y Sir G. U'ilkinson) of ancient Egyptian
warfare (1264) will serve as the best illustration : ' The archers
drawn up in line first discharged a shower of arrows on the
enemy's front and a considerable mass of chariots advanced to
the charge. t'he heavy infantry, armed with spears or clubs and
covered wi;h their shields, moved forward at the same time in
close array, flanked by chariots and cavalry, and pressed upon
the centre and wings of the enemy, the archers stil gallmg the
hostile columns with their arrows.
a See Nowack, H A 1247. 3 Monolith insc. col. 2 16.
5268
 WAR
in MUSIC. The burial of dead warriors was a sacred
duty ( I K. 11 15). and lamentations were composed and
sung, z S. 117-27 331-36 (Ezek. 3218-32).
(d) T h e darker reverse is presented when we deal
with the treatment of the conquered. This was
characterised by theutmost cruelty. The wars with the
Canaanites are full of examples (Josh. 10 26 f.,and
passim). Also we have instances of mutilation of the
captives (Judg. 1 6 f.; cp I S . 11 2 and 2 S . 12 31).
Captured kings or generals were frequently slain (Judg.
7 z j ) . Too often we read of wholesale slaughter (Judg.
87 z S. Sz) indicated by the phrase m y T?) a?? (EV
‘ smote with the edge of the sword ’). The feet were
placed (in token o f conquest) upon the neck or
head of the conquered (Josh. 1024). The dead were
decapitated ( I S. 1754 319 2 Macc. 153: Jos. B/ i. 17 2 ) .
The dead were often rifled of their property, and
prisoners plundered ( I S . 31 8 z Macc. 9 27). T h e horses
of the enemy had their sinews severed (‘ houghed ’ ) that
they might be rendered useless (Josh. 11 6 9). W e also
read of pregnant women ripped up, and infants dashed to
pieces ( 2 K . 1516 Is. 1316 Am. 113 Hos. 1 0 1 4 Nah. 310
Ps. 1378 z Macc. 5 13). T h e land of the enemy was
desolated, the trees cut down, and the wells stopped up
(Judg. 6 4 I Ch. 201 Dt. 201gJ). Towns and villages
were burnt to the ground (Judg. 945 I Macc. 528 1084).
T h e payment of large sums of money was imposed on
the conquered, or a yearly tribute ( 2 K. 1 8 1 4 Is. 33 18),
a custom which was universal and is constantly referred
to in the Assyrian inscriptions.
A severe judgment, however, cannot be passed on the
treatment by the Hebrews of their conquered. The
universal custom of antiquity must be taken into con-
sideration as well as the all-prevailing conception of
war as a religious act in which the deity of the nation
was deeply involved. The old Semitic conception of
the @rem explains much of the practice. In comparison
with Assyrian usage the Hebrews must be called
humane. By far the larger proportion of the captured
were made into slaves. T h e women became concu-
bines, and were treated with consideration.
The Egyptians also, xcording to Wilkinson’s judgment, were
humane as compared with the Assyrians in their treatment
of captives (Anc. Egyjt.1 264). ‘ The cruel custom of flay-
in: alive and the tortures represented on the sculptures of
Nineveh show that the .Assyrians were guilty of barbarities at a
period long after the Egyptians had heen accustomed to the
refinements of civilisation.’ Just as the followers of David
reckoned up the foreskins of the Philistines whom they had
slain, so the ancient Egyptians reckoned up the severed hands
which were placed in heaps before the king and counted by his
secretary (Wilkinson, idid. lzas).
The attitude of the Hebrew prophets towards the
wars of their people
. . against
- a foreign
- foe was at first
9, Attitude one of unquestioning sympathy. This
of Prophets. was inevitable in consequence of the
religious aspect of war above indicated.
Elisha advises the-allied monarchs of Israel and Judah
to adopt a skilful ruse in their war against Moab ( z K.
4 15f. ), and on his deathbed he is greeted by Joash, king
of Israel, with the same words ‘ The chariots of Yahw8
and the horsemen thereof,’ with which the prophet him-
self had greeted El:jah in the latter’s closing hours
( 2 K. 2 12 12 14): and Elisha’s last address to the king
of Israel is one of passionate insistence on the need of
persistent energy in prosecuting the war with Syria.
More than a century later. Isaiah’s powerful personality
is Judahs strongest stay in the kingdom’s darkest hour
of conflict with Assyria. Towards the close of the eighth
century, however, prophecy scanned more closely the
religious and ethical aspects of national policy, and in
the days of Jeremiah the divorce between nationalism
and religion in its purest sense was complete, and the
prophet saw nothing before the disordered and corrupt
state but irrevocable doom. There gleamed also upon
the distant horizon the vision of a pure, holy, and
righteous rule, when men would ‘ beat their swoi-ds
into coulters and their spears into pruning-knives’ (Mic.
168 5269
WARS OF THE LORD
43 IS:^^), ‘the image of Joel 310 reversed ’ (Cheyne),
sustained also by the utterances of Is. 9 5 and 111-9;
cp Zech. 910. These are the ideals which Christianity
seeks to realise.
In the moral world there is a constant opposition
between the powers of good and evil, both in the
Metaphori- individual mental life and in the life of
Both the Old and the New
calreferencea. Testament,
society.
therefore, inevitably em-
ploy the material terms of earthly warfare as metaphors.
God is repeatedly called a ’ shield ’ in this world of
strife (Gen.151 Dt.3329 Ps.512 5911 84911), or his
truth (or faithfulness) is so called (91 4 ) . These terms
abound in the N T passages which deal with spiritual
warfare. The apostle Paul is especially prone to their
use ( I Cor.926 zCor.75 1Tim.612 z T i m . 4 7 and in
Eph.6 I I ~ [see
. BHEASTPLATE]). In the Book of Revela-
tion, which moves in the language and ideas of Jewish
apocalyptic and Messianic eschatology, we have a ’ war
in heaven ’ (r6Xepos 6u ohpavd) in which Satan and the
Beast are finally quelled by God and his heavenly host,
Megiddo being employed as the type of the great
heavenly Armageddon (see Beyschlag, N T Theol. 11.
PP. 399-4081.
War in IsIRm, on the other hand, is chiefly regulated
by Kuriin, Sur. 47, and is nothing but old Semitic
ll. war in warfare carried out beyond the distinc-
Islam. tions of nationalism into that of believers
and non-believers in the prophet. Allah
is the Lord-protector of the faithful but not of un-
believers (Sur.4712). The Jihad should even be
carried on against unbelievers during the four sacred
months, while for all believers those months are exempt
(Sur. 936J). Those who are slain in a Jihad hav-
paradise as their reward (Sur.475-7). See further Sell,
Faith of Zslanm(2),360J
The most important recent contribution is Schwally’sSemi-
fische KriqsaZtmf~mer, of which his first Heft, dealing with
the religious side has appeared. Especially
12. Literature. important is his’account of the taboos im-
posed during war, as well as of the apparatus
of religious cultus in war. The writer however is somewhat
in danger of finding religious motives connected dith war where
none such existed. See criticism by Volz (in TLZ, 13th S; t
tgoz). Next in im ortance are the arts. ‘Kriegswesen etc.
Beiizinger in PRE(6,and S 72 in Nowack‘s He.3.Arch. (1 37zJ).
g;
Respecting war among the Assyrians the materials are fdund in
the royal annalistic inscc. in Schrader’s H-IB i. and ii. For
Egypt consult especially Erman’s Lye in Ancient E ~ y j t20 ,
,5208). 0.c. w.
WARD. See PRISON. The words are :-
I. V W p , mifmar, Gen. 40 3J, nlnwp, m i b d r e f h(II).
2. 1!3D, s e ~ a rEzek.
, 19 gt (5 2 2).
3. nys,pr&-dcfh,Jer. 37 13t ( $ 2 IO).
4. n i P V 1 ) . (%2 14).
5. + u A u 7 (8 2 15).
WARDROBE, KEEPER OF THE (D’l2q;l lpv ;
K. 2214, T O Y I M A T I O @ Y ~ A K O C [BAL], 2 Ch. 3422,
~ ~ A A C C O Y C A N T A C ~ N T O A A C [BAL]), see DRESS
I 6 , HULDAH:
On ‘vestry’( ? p h p )in a K. 1022, see DRESS, § 8, VESTRV.
WARP (‘ng),Lev. 1 3 4 8 8 See W EAVING.
WARS OF’ THE LORD [BOOK OF THE] (l&
118’ nbn$2), a book cited in Nu. 21 1 4 3 ( E ) , accord-
ng to RV, in the following terms. ( W e remove KV’s
ioetical arrangement, however, and assume provision-
Ily that the text of the formula of citation is correct ;
hat the text of the passage quoted is not by any means
orrect, is maintained under VAHEB.) ‘Wherefore it
i said in the book of the Wars of the L ORD , Vaheb
I Suphah, and the valleys of Arnon, and the slope
f the valleys that inclineth toward the dwelling of
ir, and leaneth upon the border of Moab.’
Kuerien gives the following brief stitement of what is
5270
 WASHINGS, CEREMONIAL
supposed to be known respecting the ' book' referred
'' A
song-book? :by &CY
'Evidence of the date of the
Mil+amofh. YahwP is supplied
the title itself: the ' ' wars ofYahw8"
a r e the wars of Israel against his neighbours in the
period of the Judges, under David ( I S. 1817 2528). and
later on. The collector of the songs referring to these
wars presumably lived after their close, when Israel's
heroic age was long gone by' (Hex. ET, p. 35, n. 5).
According to Stade (GVZlso), the fragments of song
in vv. 176 18 and (probably) VZI. 276-30 come from the
same source as vv. 146 x j . Dillmann, too, thinks it
plausible to derive from this source vv. 176 18 and
perhaps also Ex. 15 1-19. The ' book ' referred to was
therefore, these scholars think, a collection of songs,
similar to the Book of J ASHER (q.v.),and its date is
variously placed, in the time of Omri, about 900 B.C.
(Stade), the latter half of the ninth century (E. Meyer,
Z A T W 1881, p. 131), and the times of David and
Solomon (Reuss, Gesch. der izeil. Schr. ATP), 172 ;
Dillm. ).
There is, however, only one express quotation from the 'book
and it is not certain that it is poetical orevenmetrica1.l Lookink
a
a. gee- at the contents of the quotation, moreover, one
would not judge it to come either from a history
graphical or from a collection of historical songs or ballads.
survey? Was thetitleofthe 'hook'really'WarsofYahw&?'
e at any rate did not so understand it, for it
renders thus 6rh 6 7 0 Akywar ;v f3iSAioz [ ] n6Arpos 705
K V ~ ~ O+vV <do@ ZgA6yroev. ' Another ' veriion 'in the Hexapla
agrees; it gives 6th 70Cm&pvrac i v KaTaAdyy, 7Ljv aohepo6vnov
nInI [=n17*] rrpbr ~ i au<a@. v Nor is the title 'Book of the
Warspf Yahwi.' a probable one. It says either too much or too
little. The phrase 'wars of YahwS' occurs elsewhere (I S. 18 17)
of the wars of Saul and (t S. 25 28) of David in his earlief
period. But can a distorical work, such as a 'book of wars
must be supposed to be, have excluded the unsuccessful cam-
paigns of the champions of Israel? 'Book of the Wars of
srael' is possible, hut surely not the title which now stands in
Nu. 21 14. What then is a possible title? The quotation sug-
gests that it had reference to geogra hy Elsewhere (see
VAHEB)it is maintained that the Jerafm&te Negeh is the
region spoken of, and we have reason to think that David, after
conquering a large part of the Negeb, took a military census of
its inhabitants (see TAHTIM-HOYSHI). Both [nib& and nin*
have sometimes arisen out of i ~ c n q . . The oue word represents
5[~]nn,the other ny,. Most probably the book quot:d from by
E in Nu. 21 r q was called sCj& Yerahme'el-i.e., the book,
01 list, of Jerahmeel. I t was a geographical survey.
T. K. C.
WASHINQS, CEREMONIAL. On the subject
generally see C LE AN ($5 15 and 17) and SACRIFICE ;
Cp also B APTISM, J OHN THE BAPTIST.
The words for 'washing,' whether ceremonial or not, are :
I. p !, r&&, Ass. ra@u ; A O ~ C L(Ex. V 29 4, etc.), nA6verv
(of the feet, Lev. 19 etc.), virrnrv (of feet Gen. 19 2 etc. ; of
hands, Ex. 3021 etc. ; of face, Gen. 43 p),'&rrovimerv (Prov.
SO 12). Mainly in P
2. Dp?, ki66ZsS, nhv'vsrv (of garments, Ex. 19 14 Lev. 13 6 etc),
IrrorrAliverv (of garments, 2 S. 19 24) ; Ass. ka6lisu, to tread. See
FULLER.
3. $?,! f&6aZ, @ & m e w , ' to dip ' (in blood, Lev. 9 9 14 51 ; in
water, Nu. 19 18[hysso 1, 2 K.8 15 [coverlet] ; in oil, Dt.33 24
[the feet], etc.). Cp &LS, 5 5.
4. m7, d+z (in Hiph.), LrrorAd<erv (of washing in the lavers,
2 Ch. 46), rrhdvfrv (burnt offering, Ezek. 40 38).
5. @anTt<6p€VOS, Eccl. 3430 II Nu. 191rJ, vip p - & 213 3 ~ .
6. A O V T ~ ~ Ecclus.
V, 3430 [zj], 'washing.'
7. Ao6ew, Jn. 13 I O ( b AfAoup6vos. RV 'he that is bathed ').
8. vimerv, M t 15 2 Mk. 7 3 (hands) Jn. 13 5 etc. (feet) Jn. 9 7
(in healing).
9. ,'3arrscup6r, Mk. 74(cups).
It is well known that man in a primitive state, but
at the stage at which he has become a religious being
1. Original and some degree of reason has succeeded
to what was littlemore than instinct, looks
ideas. upon rivers. springs, and wells as the
abodes of gods or as being themselves deities (cp
SPRINGS).~ T o drink the water, to bathe in it,
or merely to sprinkle the person with it, was to imbibe
1 The arrangement in RV is misleading.
a so B F ' AL ~%@AQ.
3 See F;azer 'Goldes Bouxh and Pausanins: Grant Allen
Enol. of fhe idfa of God, i88 (cgp 405); Clodd, Primitiv;
Man, 1 8 2 8 Cp WRS, ReZ. Sem.( I, 135.
5271
WASHINGS, CEREMONIAL
or to cover oneself with a divine and mysterious power.
Bathing was a religious act. Water therefore was
holy. Further evidence for the idea that a more than
natural power was inherent in water would be seen in
the refreshing, and sometimes healing, effect of this
act. Water vas refreshing and healing because it was
holy. When a reason was sought for the fact that
water cleansed, the explanation would again be the
same : it cleansed because it was ho1y.l Then, water
is looked upon as purifying, as washing away impurities
or cleansing from a taboo ; and finally the frequent use
of water becomes a social and sanitary, as well as a
religious act. The order of ideas can hardly have been
otherwise. Primitive man fears water, therefore makes
a god of it, worships it (cp religio) ; this fear must have
been overcome before he could make frequent use of
it for other than strictly religious purposes.
Benzinger tells us (Heb. Arch. 108) that in the
ablutions of the Hebrews it is often difficult to distin-
a. Among the guish between the washings performed
for the sake of the body, and
Hebrews. purelysuch as were purely religious. That is
no doubt because originally no distinction was made.
T h e Hebrews, however, when we make their acquaint-
ance, had already forgotten the true origin of ablutions ;
it is the second idea that now prevails : cleansing or
washing is a holy act, and water is holy because it
cleanses.* I n this sense for the most part ablutions
play an important part in the religious and social life of
the Hebrews, as in that of their neighbours (Egyptians,
Arabians, etc. ).s
The next step is for ceremonial washings to become
symbolical. ' Water and fire,' says Jastrow, ' are the
two great sources of symbolical purification that we
meet with in both primitive and advanced rituals of the
past' ( K e l . of Ba6ylonia and Assyria, 276). Thus
amongst the Jewish ESSENES(p.v. 4 ; cp De Quincey,
Works, vol. v i ) , as already amongst the Babylonians
(Jastrow, 276 ; see also R ITUAL , 5 I O ) and Persians
(see ZOROASTRIANISM, § 16), washing as a religious
act received quite a special importance.'
The ablutions of the Jews may be divided as far as it i s
possible now to distinguish them as follows &I) The purely
religious (mag)cal)a (2 K. 5 IO cp Jn. 2 97).
3. occasions I n these we can still detect the primitive
idea. (2) The purely ritual which were
suggested by the first. I n these the idea is now khat of pnrifi-
cation. Under this heading come (a) wishings of initiation and
consecration (Lev. 86). With this is connected the washing or
baptism of the Jewish PROSELYTE (4.v. $ 5). (6) Washings
with a view to the performance of a sacred function (Ex. SO 17-2t).
The Egyptian priests, too, were required to bathe frequently in
.
cold water(cp Herod. 2 37 also the Mohammedan Wadu).6 (3).
The semi-ritualistic washiLgs for the purpose of cleansing from
uncleanness. Examples are : Lev. 136 34 54-58 (leprous gar-
ments), 1447 (clothes after contact with leprous house), 1452
(house-with running water) 156-8101: 13 16s(clothes and
person), 15 IZ (earthen vessel wwden vessel) 15 18 (person), 15
22 27 (menstruouscontact ; cp Doughty, A r . Des. 1572); in D,
Dt. 21 1-9 23 9-11 ; in JE, Ex. 19 10-15. Resides these, there
arose (4) the purely social usage common to all eastern peoples.
The hot climate and the wearing of sandals7 made the practice
1 The writer in Schenkel (BL, S.V. 'Waschen') reverses the
order of ideas. As a preparation for contact with holy things,
the body must be cleansed. Because water was used for the
purpose streams etc. were worshipped and men bathed in
them a i a religidus ah.
a At a much later date, however, to perform ablutions was not
always considered a virtue. Cp Stanley, Christian Institu-
tions 6 1:: 'C!eanliness is a duty which some of the
monakc communities of Christendom have despised, and some
.
have even treated as a crime ' also Socrates HE 4 23.
3 For the Egyptians, cp Wilkinson, A d . Egyjtiam, 248.
For the modern Arabians, see Doughty, AY. Des. 1250;
where water is lacking or scarce they use sand (cp Doughty,
1 5 3 6 ; Benzinger, H A , 108 note), but the act is here no doubt
symbolical.
4 For the Greek practice see Hesiod Op. cf Dies, 722.
6 See Th. Frede, Wundergiau6e i d Heidenhrm und in d e r
aZtcn Kfrchr, 591:
6 For Mohammedan usage, see, further, ,Koran Sura,5 8, and
Hughes, Dicf. of Islam, under 'Ablution.
7 The writer in Schenkel adds other reasons for washings of
the clothing, of the whole body, or of paiticular atts of It in
the East-viz., on account of the desert sand, a n t particularly
as a protection against cutaneous diseases.
5272
 WASHPOT
of feet-washing important and the offering of water for the
yurpose a common mark ’of hospitality (Gen. 18 4 19 2 24 32).
o the same category probably belong t h e washings before
(hlt. 15 a) and after meals (Berachoth 84), on which see MEALS,
Is.’
T o the first of the social usages ( 5 3 [4]) Jesus no
doubt conformed. ‘The fourth gospel, which has .to be
used with the greatest caution, even
*. p:yge tells us that he himself washed his
disciples’ feet (Jn. 132). T o the second
social usage, however, he seems to have attached little
importance (Lk. 1138). W e are also told that he sub-
mitted to a ritual washing or baptism, and further
showed his approval of such an act by making it a
Christian institution. As, however, such a rite would
be contrary to the general tenor of his teaching, so far
as we can gather it from our imperfect sources (cp
Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God, chap. 3), and cannot
be certainly inferred from the passages in the Gospels
which are generally adduced a s evidence (see 0.
Holtzmann, Leben Jesu, p. 411 ; cp, on the other hand,
B APTISM ), its adopt.on by Jesus himself must be con-
sidered extremely doubtful. Moreover, Paul, or the
Pauline school, does not mention it as an institution of
Jesus. I Cor. 117 even makes Paul say ‘ Christ sent
me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel ’ (cp Ernst
von Dobschutz, Die Urchrisflichen Gemeinden, 22f: ).
Feine, indeed, thinks that Paul implies it, while not
actually mentioning it because it was not a matter of
controversy in the apostolic church (Jesus Chn>tus und
Paulus, 243). And Dreschen (Dar L d e n Jesu bez
Paulus) takes a very similar view. But almost any-
thing might be implied (or read into) the N T , and the
simplest conclusion is that it had not yet become a
Christian institution. It has been contended that the
rite was a natural development of the Jewish practice of
baptizing the proselyte (see Stanley, Chn‘stian Znsfitu-
fions, 5 ; cp Tylor, Primitive CuUure, 2 4 4 0 8 ) br of
the ceremonial washings of the Essenes (see E. Plauta
Nesbit. Christ, Christians. and Christianity ; De
Quincey, Woorks, vol. vii. ). T h e second suggestion is
unnecessary (see von Dobschiitz, p. 105). As to the
first, it is much more probable that the rite, as in
the case of the Eucharist,3 was taken over from the
Pagans.
This, with other rites, was adopted at a time when
the new sect was trying to win over converts among the
Gentiles, and when the gap between Judaism and
Christianity had widened. With that wonderful power
of adapting itself which it once had, the new religion
admitted the pagan ceremony of i n i t i a t i ~ n . ~Cp ROME.
M. A. C.
WASHPOT, a term of abuse applied to Moab in.the
expression ‘ hloab is my washpot’ (’y?? 7’0 2yV2 ;
M W ~ B A E B H C T H C ahrrihoc MOY ; similarly. Vg. :
Yn? in Tg. =Heb. np? ‘ t o trust ’) ; Ps. 608 [IO]
1 Cp, further, Kohler‘s art. ‘ Ablution ’ in the Jewish Encyclo-
pcrdia.
a Colenso (Natal Sennotas 1866 No. IO) thought that ‘the
command in Mt. 28-19, “Go e; therefore, and teach all
nations, haptising them in the name of the Father and of the
Son and of the Holy Ghxt ” would be conclusive as to the fact
of his having directly en.ioiAed the practice, were it not that this
formula with its full expression of the name of the Trinity
betrays’the later age in which the passage in which it occur;
was most probably written.’ Conybeare has recently shown
( Z N T W , 2 2 7 5 8 [1901]: cp ffib6. J o z r m . 11 0 2 8 ) very stro?g
reasons for believing that the mention of the three Persons m
the Trinity is not original (cp col. 3270 [top]). The passage as
it stands, therefore, seems to have been edited for liturgical
purposes, and it is likely that in the first instance there was no
reference whatever to baptism. Apart from this we have no
evidence, as Colenso again says (i6id. No. g), that any of Jesus’
disciples were baptised.
3 This again has been looked upon as a development of a
Jewish practice. See, especially G. H. Box in the J o u r n a l o f
Theological S t d i e s , 3 357-369,$ha thinks that the Last Sup r
was not a Passover as is commonly supposed, but the weegy
Kid&&%,a service)in the house.
4 Cp Grant Allen, EvoZ. of the Idea of God, 388 405;
Clodd, Primitive Man, 1 8 2 8 : J. M. Robertson, Shmt Hist.
of Chrisfranify (see Indsx).
5273
WAX
1089 [IO]. T h e commentators refer to the story told
of Amasls (Herod. 2 ~ ~ or ) ,to the custom of Persian
kings of having a footpan carried in their train when
in the field. T h e latter illustration is preferred by
Delitzsch.
This base image, however, is surely due to corruption of the
text. Both Tn and ’XI1 are corruptions of 1WQ MigSur, or of
Ashhur. See Che. Ps.PI, ad loc., and cp MOAB,% 14
(‘ Moah’ and ‘ Missur ’ liable to confusion).
WASP ( c c $ H ~ ) , Wisd. 128 AV, also RVmg., RV
H ORNET (P.v.).
WATCH (7v@f2),Neh.73. See G UARD , 3.
WATCHER (Y’Z), ‘ir [Aram.] : arrshoc C6S71E I P
[Theod.] ; f r P H r o p o C [Aq. Sym.] ; vigiL, in the Gk.
Enoch ~rpH,-opoc) ; Dan. 4 IO 14 [om. 61 20 [I3 17 131.
The term reminds us of the o p , ii.mlorim (Is. 626)
whom Yahwb charges to watch over the ruined walls of
Jerusalem, and to remind him of their sad condition.
W e find it again in Enoch and in Jubilees. In Enoch
it is used in a double sense. In 1 5 109 15 122 4 1310
14 I 3 1 5 a 16 I 2 91 15 it designates the fallen angels ; in
20 I 39 12 13 402 61 12 71 7 it belongs to the archangels.
In Jubilees 415 (cp 83 l O 5 ) , in the explanation of the
name Jared (which agrees with that given in Enoch 66,
except that Mt. Hermon is not mentioned as the place
on which they descended) it is said, ‘ i n his days the
angels of the Lord descended on the earth, those who
are named the Watchhers, that they should instruct the
children of men, and that they should do judgment and
uprightness on the earth.’ A myth of the watchers
which differs somewhat from that in the Ethiopic Enoch
is given in the Slavonic Enoch (183 cp 6 3 ; see Charles’s
notes in Secrets of Enoch) ; they are there called the
Grigori (Byp?)yopot). In the Book of Adam and Eve
(6th cent. A . D .) the watchers are also represented as
the fallen angels, who, as long as they preserved their
virginity, were called the ‘ sons of Seth.’ See Charles’s
very full note on Jubilees 4 15,
WATCHES OF THE NIGHT. See D AY, 5 4.
WATCHTOWER (il$yp, mi5peh ; Is. 21 8). Cp
MIZPAH, MIZPEH. For bd&an(Is. 32 14t)and S?p,m&dEZ,
see T OWER. In Is. 2 16 RVmg. has ‘pleasant watch-towers’for
??p?s ni’??, i?k+yafh ha&emdZh (AV ‘pleasant pictures,’
RV ‘pleasant imagery’); but see ‘Isa.’SBOT (Heb.), note ad
Zoc., and Crit. Bib.
WATER (DlD). On the ‘ holy’ or ‘ bitter’ water,
called also the ‘ water of purifying’ (AV) or ‘of ex-
piation’ (RV) of Nu. 8 7 8 see J EALOUSY [TRIAL OF] ;
on the water of ‘ separation ’ or ‘ of impurity ‘ (RVmP.)
in Nu. 199, See CLEAN A N D UNCLEAX, 5 17
WATERCOURSE. t ~ a n h ,njyn, see CON-
5 2.
DUITS,
2. jdZeg-, p?/acrah, 299, ;n$~,
see R ~ V E R , 5.
3. m8@ rnrtyim, 0%) Ngn, 2 Ch. 32 30 AV. See SPRINGS, % D
[6],and cp GIHON.
4. ;inn&, +y, 2 S. 5 8 RV, AV ‘gutter ’ ; meaning doubtful.
WATERPOT ( y h p i b ) ,Jn. 27. Cp P OTTERY, § 3 ( 1 ) .
WATERS OF MEROM ( D i l p g ) , Josh. 115 7. See
M EROM [WATERS OF].
WATERSPOUT. (I) YiQ, :inn&-, Ps. 427 (RVma.
‘cataract ’). Cp WATERCOURSE, 4. (2) p ~fannin, , Ps.148 7
RVw. See S ERPENT, 5 3f: n. 2 ; WHALE.
WAVE LOAVES ( n p n pi+), ~ e v 2317. . See
SACRIFICE, s 346. WAVE OFFERING (npm), E ~ .
2924. See S ACRIFICE, 5 14.and cp C LEAN AND U N -
CLEAN, 5 3.
WAX (qh,d6nag; K H P O C )Ps. , 2214 [IS] 682 [3]
975 Mic. 1 4 ; also Judith1615 Ecclus. 2420; also Ps.
588 [g] 6 (see S NAIL , z),Is. 64I [z] B B N A Q : and possibly
Ezek. 2717 (emended text : so Co. ; but see PANNAG),
and Ps. 11812[see 61. Beeswax, which is secreted by
5274
 WAY
all honey-bees and formed into the cell walls of their
comh is intended. It melts at 144’ F. See BEE.
WAY. On ‘ t h e way‘ (H oAoc), Actsgz, etc., see
HERESY, 5 I.
WAYMARK (It’?),
Jer. 3121 [zo]. See MASSEBAH.
5 I e , col. 2978 ; also Crit. Bib.
WEAPONS. Cp W AR . Hebrew uses the general
term k3lim (Gen. 273), which means simply instruments or
implements. :1 1 S. 2040 AV renders by the more ambitious
word ‘artillery. In the N T (Jn. 183 Rom. 613 z Cor. 104)
the common Greek term G d a is employed.
Naturally at first any implement or instrument would
be used as a weapon, a club or a S TAFF ( [ g . ~ . ]; cp
Darwin, Descent of iMan, 81 E18gol).
1. In But the natural weapons of the lower
animals (horns, etc. ; see Darwin, 500s) would soon
suggest to man the use of something more effective.
Later, it is possible that one at least of the agricultural
implements, the sickle (see A GRICULTURE , 5 7, with
figs.), gave rise to the scimitar or S W O I ~(9.v.). D
would add force to the words in Is. 24. I n no art,
perhaps, has more ingenuity or more rapid progress
been shown than in that of the manufacture of weapons
(see Herbert Spencer, PrincQZes of Sociblogy, lI3)59).
As the Hebrews had no doubt to wage war continually,
it would be no matter for surprise if they had displayed
some skill in this art at quite an early date. Later,
they would also be quick to note and to copy the equip-
ment of more advanced neighbours (e.g. Canaanites,
Egyptians, Assyrians, etc. ), who realised more fully
the value of well-equipped, organised, and disciplined
armies. See A R M Y and cp WAR. The more primitive
weapons of offence, however, such as the C LUB (see
S TAFF) and SLING (4.v.) were perhaps never entirely
displaced by the S WORD and D AGGER (see SWORD),
J AVELIN (q.v.),BOW (see below, z), and S PEAR (9.v.);
and instruments with Hint edges or points, as has fre-
quently happened, no doubt continued to be used side
by side with those of metal. Of defensive weapons, a
SHIELD ( 4 . v . ) of some kind was probably in use at a
very early date ; but we also hear in the OT of B REAST-
PLATE, GREAVES,and H ELMET (9q.v.) . 1. The and part by W OOL and FLAX (9q.v.)-
WEAVING
WEASEL (+n ;1 r&AH ; mustela), the name of an
unclean animal, Lev. 1129f (EV, 6, Targ. Jon. ; Pesh..
Vg., and most Rabbins). There is some little doubt,
however, whether the weasel is really referred to, and
various interpreters (Saadia, Bochart, Lag. N B 144)
have preferred on philological grounds the rendering
‘mole’ (but see below). T h e weasel is an anima1
hardly ever eaten, and its long body and short legs
might be urged as justifying its position ‘among the
creeping things that creep upon the earth.’
Zoologically weasels are placed with the pole-cats, martens,
and others in the family Mustelidae of the order Carnivora.
One species of each of the above-mentioned animals is. recorded
by Canon Tristram from the Holy Land. The southern weasel
Musfela boccamefa, is found about Mount Tabor and probabl;
in other wooded districts ; the pole-cat, M. jut on.^, lives under
Hermon and Lebanon, and the white-breasted or beech marten
M. foina in the neighbourhood of Beyrout. It is unlikely !ha;
the HehrLws distinguished between these species, though from
its habits and habitat they may have separated off the otter,
Lutra vulgnnk, which is common on the shores of the sea of
Galilee. A. E. S.-S. A. C.
This
WEAVING
Raw products and their pre- Warping (I 5).
paar;ttion(8 I). Shedding (g 6).
Spinning (8 2). Passing and beating up of weft
The horizontal loom (8 3). (8 7).
Two types of upright loom Direction of web (S E).
(B 4). Final processes (I 9).
Technigue and terminology of Pattern and figure weaving
weaving ($30 5-8). (5 14.
In the present study of the art of weaving as
practised by the Hebrews from the earliest times to
the opening centuries of our era it is proposed ( I ) to
glance briefly at the raw materials and the manner
of their preparation for the loom, which will include the
process of spinning ; ( 2 )to explain the construction and
modus oprundz’ of the loom itself ; and ( 3 ) to close with
brief references to the further processes through which
the web had to pass after leaving the loom, and to the
more obscure subject of pattern and figure weaving.
Throughout the whole period of their national exist-
ence, the needs of the Hebrew households in the matter
of textiles were supplied for the most
products ~~~

On Egyptian and Assyrian monuments one of the
2. The bow. weapons most commonly represented is
the Bow (see C HARIOT , S IEGE , W AR ).
The Hebrew term is n$g, &!Seth. With this are of course
connected the ARROW, YE, @s, and the case for carrying it,
*!R, tZZi (Gen. 273), or ‘a$Zh-i.e., the QUIVER (q.v. :
cp also CHARIOT). This seems to have heen one of the earliest
of the more elaborate weapons. The throwing of a small SPEAR
( p a ) or DART, n i t , S t Z d ( 2 Ch. 32 5 AV, RV ‘weapons’; cp
Joel 2s) 1 with the hand would soon give rise to a mechanical
instrum;nt (cp SLING)to which the dart would be suitably
adapted feathers bein; added to increase its flight (cp Tylor,
Anfhro&logy chap. S).s In this way we get the ARROW. The
bow wascomAonly made of reed, wood, or horn. The Israelites
used it both in war (Gen. 48 zz), and in the chase (21 m); and
seem to have bent it with the foot (for the Egyptian practice,
see Wilkinson, A m . Eg. 1203). Thestrings, P’!?’D, mithdrim
(Ps. 21 12) were probably made of gut or hide. Here we seem
to have case in which an implement of war suggested an
instrument of music (see MUSIC,$ 2 ; cp Tylor, Anthropology,
chap. 12). According to the AV of 2 S. 118 David ‘bade them
teach the children of Judah [the use ofl the bow’ apparently an
irrelevant notice where it stands in 2 S. ; hence RV substitutes
‘song’ for ‘use.’ The remedy, however, seems inadequate, and
it is open to methodical textual critics to dense something more
radical and effective. See H. P. Smith, ad Zoc. and cp Cn’t.
Bi6. The bowmen of Elam (Is. 226 Jer. 49 35,’ if the text is
correct), of Kedar (Is. 21 17), and of an unnamed people from
the land of ])gs (Jer. 6 23) are specially mentioned in the OT.
1 Other words rendered DART are : B : ~ , %e!, z S. 18 14 EV,
RVmg. ‘staves,’ see STAFF ; K$F$ tatha&, Job 41 29 [ZI] AV,
RV ‘clubs,’ hut see JAVELIN, 3 ; yep, massd‘, Job 41 26 [IS]
E V ; f‘n,e?, Pr. 723 AV, RV ‘arrow’ (see above); ~k P J h ,
Eph. 6 16 ; and PoAb, Heb. 12 20 (but the clause should probably
be omitted ; see Ti.).
2 In other respects the construction was no doubt similar to
that of the SPEAR (q.v.).
5275
frequently mentioned together in OT,
preparation.s
their Hos. 2 5 Prov. 31 13, etc. -with the
addition, for coarser textures, of the
H AIR ( 9 . v . ) of goats and camels, and, in the latest
periods of their history, of COTTON and S ILK (q9.v.) .
In an interesting passage of the Mishna treatise Sirabdlith
( 7 z ) , among the various categories of work forbidden
on the Sabbath-‘ forty save one’ in number (cp z Cor.
11 24)-we find an enumeration of the chief processes in
the manufacture of woollen cloth, including ‘ shearing,
scouring, teazing, dyeing, spinning, warping, attaching
the leashes to the leash-rods (for these technical terms,
see below, 5 sz), weaving,’ etc.
The fleece (lW7 n?!, Judg. 6 37). according to the statement
in the Mishna, w a s first scoured(p>) to remove impurities and
restore the original white colour (hence &heterm), after which
it was thoroughly teazed (Y?!) and carded (339 with a carding
comb. The latter operation is done at the present day in the
wool bazaars of the Levant (cp Jos. B/ v. 8 I [%3311 for an
;pcorr&A~av in Jerusalem, the n y $W p9W of Ertlb.109) by
means of a bow and its string. At this stage the wool might
1 For proper names poscibly derived from the name of this
animal see HELED,HELDAI, HULDAH.
2 Cp Ar. &uZd, Syr. &zZfdZ, ‘mole,’ and ?lg\?n, an animal
often mentioned in the Talm. (see Di. ad Zoc. Aconnection with
75” which means ‘penetrate deeply’ 9 ni in Talm., ‘to
plunse in the sacrificial knife ’I, is prob%?e7;5Lewysohn, Zool.
Talm. 101, and Hommel, Siiugethiere, 337. It h, however to
be observed that, now, at any rate, no true mole occu,‘ in
Palestine. See MOLE. On a later Heb. word for weasel, see
col. 1210 n. I.
3 The standard work on this subject is still Tertnkum Anti-
quonrrw, an A c c o r d of f k e Art of Weaving among the
AncGnts :Part I [all published] : On the raw materials used for
weaving,’ by James Yates, 1843.
5276
 WEAVING
be dyed or this process .night be deferred till after the spinning
or even ’until it could be dyed ‘in the piece ’ after leavlng the
loom.
In the case of flax, we can follow the similar pro-
cesses by the help both of literary references (Mishna,
passim ;Pliny, H N 19 3 etc. ), and of the graphic repre-
sentations on Egyptian tombs (see Yates, op. cit. [n. 3.
above], pl. 7 ; Wilkinson, Anc. Eg.2 173). Here we see
the stalks being pulled up by the roots, laid in order and
rippled with a rippling-comb, or beaten over a stick to
free them from the seed capsules. After being exposed on
the flat roof (see Josh. 2 6 ) or elsewhere until thoroughly
dry, they were steeped in a trough to separate the inner
fibres from the woody portions of the stalk, a process
technically known as ‘retting.’ The stalks thus
macerated were again dried in the sun or in an oven
(Shabd. 1 6 ) , and then beaten with a wooden mallet
(Pliny’s ‘ stupparius malleus ’) to complete the separation
of the inner fibres. In the earliest period these fibres
were sorted by the hand (Erman, Egypt, 450); later
they were ‘heckled’ or combed by means of a
comb (pf? hj plop, illustr. Wilkinson, 2174), bywhich
the longer and finer fibres were separated from those of
inferior quality. Women as well as men were engaged
in this process of heckling the flax, as appears from Is.
1 9 9 , where the njpqp of ,MT (AV ‘fine flax,’ RV ‘coinbed
flax’ ; cp Symm. K T E ~ U L U T ~should
V) be read niplib, the
flax-combers (Vg. pcctentes).l Linen was preferably
worn in its native whiteness ; but, if required, the flax
might be dyed before being spun, as in the case of the
Tabernacle curtains (Ex. 35 2 5 ) , or the dyeing might be
postponed to a later stage as explained above for wool.
To judge from an incidental remark in BEbE Kumma
1 0 9 , woollen garments were more favoured in J u d z a ,
whilst Galilee preferred linen.
Goats’ hair was employed for textures of the coarser sort
especially for the garb of mourning (see SACKCLOTH),^ and l i d
camels’ hair was often nixed with sheep’s wool (Ktlnim 9 I ).
In later times COTTON and S ILK 6 q . v . ) (Rev. 18 12 but not
Ecclus. 45 IO [AV], see RV, nor Am. 3 12 [RV])were introduced :
the hidemin ( ,1733, Y&na,3 7) or Indian fabrics worn by the
high priest were undoubtedly of cotton. To these the Mishna
adds hemp (D‘?;?, KdvvaStr-but the ‘hempen frock ‘of Ecclus.
4 0 4 RV is a n incorrect rendering of &pihrvav for which see
below, $ 9) and the fibres of a species of mussel, for which see
Yates, 03.rit. 152&
Whilst among the Hebrews, as among the Egyptians,
both men (Ex.3535 I S . 177 [and [Is], I Ch.421) and
women (Judg. 16 13 f. 2 K. 297 Prov.
a* spinning* 3 1 z + I Esd. 4 1 7 : cp Jos. BY i. 243 tipa
rais GoiiXarr) plied the loom, the art of spinning was
peculiarly a feminine accomplishment (Ex. 3525f: Prov.
31 19 Tob. 2 11). The apparatus for spinning : 3
( ; v./18w
Mt. 628 Lk. 1227) both wool and flax consisted of the
distaff (hi&?, iiei.? [see B D B s.v.1 Prov. 3 1 19 RV ; AV
spindle-in the Mishna a??, ?jha~d-, coZus) and the
spindle ( p d e k , $59,
. . Prov. 2.c. R V ; AV ‘distaff,’
~ T ~ U K T O fusus
S, ; Mishna, rdis). In 2 S. 3 29 we should
render ’ that holdeth the spindle’ (Vg. tenens fusum)
for ‘that leaneth on a staff’ (EV) [though here-see
STAFF-the suitableness of the reading has been dis-
p ~ t e d ] . ~The distaff generally consisted of a piece
of cane round the open head of which the wool or flax
was wound. It is held in the left hand or fixed in the
girdle, while the spinner draws out and twists the yarn
between the finger and thumb of the right hand,4 with
1 So modern edd. For the technical process disguised under
the following ;mindsee helow $ 5.
a For the variety of haircloih named by the Romans cilicium,
and its interesting association with Paul, see CILICIA,# 3.
3 From the original sipnificance of the root 759 in Semitic
vin. ‘to be rmnd glohula; ’p&k must originally have signified
the round or spherical khorl with which the spindle was
weighted, ac the cognate fem. form still does in Arabic then by
metonymy the whole spindle (see Driver, TBS 19z
DISTRICT I.
3). Cp
4 Cp Jeome, E#. 150.15 ‘habeto h a m semper in manibun,
vel staminis pollice fila deducito,’ etc.
5277
WEAVING
which also the spindle is kept rotating. The spindle
consisted of three parts (see Maimon. on PEyii 12 8 ap.
Surenh. iWishnu): a hook by which the thread from
the distaff was fastened, the wooden shank, 9-12 inches
in length, and the circular or spherical whorl of clay,
stone, or other heavy material which served to steady
the rotatory motion of the spind1e.l (For illustration
of early Palestinian spindle-whorls see Bliss, A Mounu
ofMuny Cities. 82, cp 80.)
The word ‘yarn,’ in Heb. n l ~ p(Ex. 3525, lit. that which is
spun [ 3 9 ,cp L B vcvvupiva), occurs in AV only I K. 10 28 2 Ch.
1 16 as a curious rendering of nrpn, in which recent editors are
unanimous in finding the name of the district of KuT: in Asia
Minor (see MIZRAIM $5 2 a ; and Benzinger and Kittel nd lor.
h u t cp C HARIOT $ ’5 col. 726 n. I , and C r i t . Bi6.). It is
introduced by thk revilsers in Piov. 7 16 as the rendering of the
obscure jWtj (for which see L INEN , I), and Ezek. 27 19 where
most scholars would read as in RVw. ‘ from UZAL’ ( p . ~ . ) .
The art of spinning was carried to perfection in Egypt
even under the earlier dynasties. Much of the linen
used as wrappings for the royal mummies is composed
of threads of almost incredible fineness. Thus it has
been calculated that the bandages in which the hands
of Thotmes 111. were enveloped, and which shows
about 150 threads of warp and 75 of weft to the square
inch, was woven from yarn so fine that 60 miles of it
would only weigh one pound avoirdupois (reduced to
English measures from Braulik. AZtuDpt. GeweBe, 6 ; c p
Birch’s note, ap. Wilk. op. cit. 2162). Such gossamer
threads, however, cannot be identified with those of the
‘ fine twined linen ’ (12; moiza‘r, e i ~ of
) Ex. 26-28
36-39, as a fabric of this sort would be entirely out of
place as curtains for the court of the tabernacle (for the
most probable explanation of the term, see L INEN , 7).
Probably no department of the technology of an-
tiquity is so beset with difficulties
The as that which deals with the art of
loom. wenvinrr.
.. -.. -----
Afterall that has been done by Bliimner (Technol. u. Tetnzinol.
der Gwerbe, etc 1875)and Marquardt (Privatle6en der Rdimer,
187g)for the Gre;k and Roman looms, by Hraulik (Alteyjtische
Gwebe-, 1900)for those of Egypt, and by Rieger (Versuch eincr
Temrinol. u. Technol. der Handwerke in der Mishna : I Th.,
Spinnen, Weben, etc., 1894) and others, there remains much
that is uncertain, not only as regards the terminology and modus
operandi,but even as regards the details of construction. Were
the ancients, for example, familiar with the mechanism of the
treadles? Was the horizontal or low loom in use among the
Romans of the republic and early empire? To the latter
question Blumner and Marquardt reply in the affirmative, whilst
Ahrens (Ffiilologus,35) Rich (in his excellent Dict. of Gk.and
Rorn. Ant.), Yates and Marindin (in Smith’sDict. of Gk. and
Rom. A d , ( $ )S.V. ‘tela’) present a good case for the exclusive
use of the upright loom. Certainly no monumental representa-
tions of the horizontal loom, or for that matter few of the up-
right loom, have come down to us from classical antiquity.
Treating the question from the point of view of the
history of man’s progress in the arts of civilisation, we
find that weaving is merely a development of the art of
plaiting, and has been correctly defined by Plato as
~ h e ~ r i ~K Pt i~ )K ~ J Kai
S u r ~ p o v o s( #a plaiting of weft and
warp,’ cited by Marq. op. cit. 504). More precisely,
the art of weaving, in its simplest form, consists in
intersecting a series of parallel threads, called the warp,
a t right angles by another set of threads called the weft
or woof, in such a way that each weft thread shall pass
alternately over and under each of the warp threads.
In plaiting, this interlacing is done by hand, and even
at the present day in some parts of Arabia and N. Africa
-no doubt also among many other half-civilised tribes
-the art of w-eaving has not advanced beyond this
stage. The late E. H. Palmer thus describes the very
primitive work of an old Bedouin woman in the neigh-
bourhood of Jebel MCisa. ‘ On one of these occasions
I noticed an old woman weaving at the tent-door. Her
looni u-as a primitive one, consisting only of a few
upright sticks upon which the threads were stretched ;
1 For illustration of Egyptian distaffs and spindles see Wilk.
o#. rit. 2 172 ; Gk. and Roman ap. Bliimner, Technolo@, etc.
1 ~rs$,and the Dicts. of Class. Antiq. S.ZIZI. ‘colns~and‘fusus.’
5278
 WEAVING
the transverse threads were inserted laboriously by the
fingers, without the assistance of a shuttle, and the
whole fabric was pressed close together with a piece of
wood. Beside her stood a younger female spinning
goats' hair to supply the old lady with the materials
necessary for her task ' (The Desert of fhe Exodus, 1125).
Between this incident and the first representations of the
horizontal loom by Egyptian artists, there stretches a
period of nearly 5000 years. Even at that early period,
however, and, as the textile remains abundantly prove,
for at least a millennium previously, the inventive genius
of Egypt, which, according to Pliny, taught the ancient
world the art of weaving, had furnished the loom with
the apparatus necessary for more expeditious work.
Putting aside the case illustrated by Wilkinson ( A n c .
Eg.2170), which furnishes no indication of any appar-
FIG. 1.-Women weaving
atus beyond a simple frame, and is therefore, in all
probability, a case of mat-plaiting, we may take the
familiar representation from the tombs at Beni Hasan
of the two women squatting on the ground and engaged
in the process of weaving (Wilk. op. cit. 1317. Erman.
Anc. Bg. 448, after Lepsius ; Moore's 'Judges,' SBOT
Eng., 86 ; Braulik, of. cit. Figs. 89-91, pp. 5 9 8 ) .
Till recently, it was assumed that this picture, which
dates from the middle empire, represented an upright
loom. It is evident, however, that this is a mistake
due to the absence of perspective in Egyptian drawing.
T h e loom is horizontal with a yarn-beam a, and a
cloth-beam 6, each fixed to the ground by a couple of
wooden pegs. Between the beams the warp is stretched,
and, if we can trust the artist in this detail, the cloth-
beam is capable of revolving and winding up the finished
web. T h e remaining parts of this instructive represen-
tation will require a more detailed examination in a
subsequent section ( 5 6 ) .
Now, when we consider the antiquity and prevalence
of the horizontal loom in Egypt,l and its prevalence in
a variety of forms throughout the E., from Africa to
India, at the present day,* it would be strange if the
Hebrews were unacquainted with it. W e have, how-
ever, no explicit testimony to the form and construction
of the early Hebrew loom. Still, a study of the well-
known passage which will engage our attention when
we come to deal with the terminology of weaving ( 5 7)
-shows that +e probabilities of the case are in favour
of Delilahs loom being of the horizontal type. T h e
operation of weaving the hair of a person asleep on the
1 The apothegm dating from the twelfth dynasty, quoted by
Braulik (op. cit. 8 g F the weaver is more unfortunate than a
woman, he has his knees for ever reaching to his chin '-proves,
as he rightly observes ( I ) that men as well as women exercised
the art and ( 2 ) that they worked in a squatting attitude, and
therefoie, like the women of the Beni Hasan picture (Fig. I), at
the horizontal loom.
9 This was also the type of loom in use among the Aztecs of
Central America ; see illustration in Tylor's Anfhrojology, 248.
A full description of the modern Syrian looms with a valuable
list of the Arabic termini technici will be found in the ZDPY
Viii., 1885, pp. 73fi, 18ox
5279
WEAVING
ground into the warp could be much more easily and
naturally done on a horizontal loom such as that shown
above.'
Of the upright loom, which consists essentially of two
- - posts
upright - joined at the top by a cross-beam, the
jugum of the R o k i d loom (for this view
4. The two of thejugurn see Smith's Dict. of Gk. and
types of up- Rom. Ant.(3)2765), there are two main
right loom. types, regarding which it is difficult to
say which is the older. (r)-There is first the type
familiar to classical students from the representation of
Penelope's'loom on a Greek vase of the fifth century
B.C. (see ill. EB(Q) 23x6 ; Blumner, 09.cit. 1357, and
often elsewhere), the distinguishing feature of which is
the absence of a cross-beam below, the warp threads
being kept taut by a series of small stone weights
attached either to the individual threads, as in the case
just cited, or to bundles of threads, as in the compara-
tively modern Icelandic loom (ill. Smith, 09.cit. 2766,
less complete in Rich, S.V. ' tela'). The Roman looms
were also of this type, as were those of the lake dwellers
of Switzerland in the neolithic age (Buschan, ' Die
Anfange u. Entwickelung der Weberei in der Vorzeit '
in VerhandZg. d. Berlin. Ges. f. Anfhropologie, etc.,
1889, pp. 2 2 7 8 ) ) . In one of the strata of the mound
of Tel-el-Hesy ( c i ~ c a500-400 B.C.), Dr. Bliss found a
large number of objects, some round, some pear-shaped,
of unbiirnt brick, which he considers to have served a s
weaver's weights ( A Moundof Many CitieJ, 113). On
this view we must admit the existence of this type of
loom in Palestine, although it has not yet been found
in Egypt.
( 2 ) The other type of upright loom is characterised
by the presence of a second cross-beam below. Where,
as usually in Egypt according to Herodotus (235), the
web was commenced at the bottom of the loom, such a
beam was indispensable and served as a cloth-beam ;
where, as was presumably the case in Palestine, the
web was 'woven from the top' (Jn.1923), the lower
beam served a s the yarn-beam. I n either type of
upright loom, however, an additional cross-beam might
be provided-usually constructed so as to revolve, thus
rendering it possible to weave a length of web greater
L
FIG. 2.-Upright loom. From Wilkinson, Anc. Er. 2 171.
than the height of the loom-as is the case in the
earliest representation of an upright loom that has come
down to us by an Egyptian artist of the new empire
(here reproduced from Wi1k.-Birch, op. cit. 2171).
This picture is unfortunately imperfectly preserved,
and the details of the construction are in several points
uncertain. T h e weaver sits on a bench in front of his
1 Moore (of. ciZ. sup.) gives this picture to illustrate Delilah's
loom, but is In error i t regarding both looms as consisting o f ' a
simple upnght frame.
5280
 WEAVING
loom, the frame of which is composed of two upright
posts, kept rigid by two cross-bars, a and b. The
roller c serves as a yarn-beam and is suspended from
the upper beam by twisted loops of rope, e. But a
revolving yarn-beam seems to imply a revolving cloth-
beam as well, which makes it probable that the roller
d, attached to the uprights bythe loopsfi serves this
purpose. The functions of the three rods, g,h, i, sus-
pended from the yarn-beam will be discussed in a sub-
sequent section (§ 6 ) .
There is no indication of the date at which the
upright loom, which, to judge from the existing repre-
tations, was a later development in Egypt (Erman,
followed by Braulik), was introduced into Palestine. It
may have been in use from time immemorial alongside of
the horizontal loom. That the ordinary Jewish loom in
N T times was of the second type above described is
evident from various indications.
Thus the upper and lower beams (reff. below) are referred to
in the Mishna, where also there is frequent reference to the
'standing warp' (igiQ 'nw, cp the classical U T ~ P O V and
stamen, the warp, from the root s - f - a ) ; weaving was done
standing as well as sitting (Zub. 32); the Latin transference
of 3 u p m and stairrina to the cross-bar and strings of the
lyre is paralleled in late Hebrew and Aramaic by the trans-
ference, though in the contrary direction, of $? (alsoI
and X?)?, Syr. naul&) to signify a loom, a phenomenon which
points to the upright horn. The seamless rohes 'woven from
the top throughout,' finally, could only have been made on the
upright loom although this does not of necessity require that
the looms for'the manufacture of ordinary fabrics were of this
type.
The loom in use at the present day in Palestine, as
has been said, is uniformly of the horizontal type, and
resembles our own handloom in being furnished w-ith
healds or heddles worked by a pair of treadles. T h e
frame, however, is much low-er, the weaver sitting on or
near the ground, and the warp, instead of being wound
round the yarn-beam at the opposite end of the frame,
as with us. is usually carried upwards and passed over a
roller attached to the opposite wall, a few stones fastened
to the ends of the warp-threads serving to keep them
taut. (For other fo:rnis with slightly different arrange-
ment, see ZDPVviii., 1885. p. 7 3 J )
To weave is, in the OT, generally I?!, 'ZyaK, a weaver >lk,
'5r?z(masc. and fern.), the latter supplanted to a large extent in
later Hebrew by the loanword '?I? 1 ( y i p S ~ o s ,gcrdius). The
loom is probably l>y, 'hTg Undg. 10 14 EV 'heam,' perhaps
also J o b 7 6 E V 'shuttle').
In commencin a new web the weaver's first care is to siretch
the warp in parafie1 lines evenly between the upper and the lower
beam (ii+y? lZ73 and iinnng "3, Kcl. 21 I
5. warping. iVq.119). if the upright loom is adopted.
If we assume that the web is commenced at the
top of the loom, these become the cloth-heam and yarn-beam
resvcctivelv. The cloth-beam apparently is intended by the
i & , ,(a term used in the iater chiptersof Ex. to render
Gro&-rjp
o'.iz, the poles for carrying the tabernacle furniture; in Ex.
2 5 8 the earlier translators of 6 used &vm,b6pcw) of Kel. 20 3
from which we gather that it might either lie across the forked
ends of the uprights or be passed through the lattar.2 Fig. D
shows, as we have seen, that a roller ( j B X , &w, Tg. Judg.
16 TI I S. 17 7) might be attached to the upper beam to serve as
a cloth or yarn-beam, as the case may he. In five passages of
our E V (2 S. 21 19 I Ch.,ll23 20 5 and the two just cited) mention
is made of a weaver's beam,' hut in none of the cases is this
rendering admissible, as will be shown in the following section.
The process of arranging the warp is technically
known as ' warping,' the late Heb. 7p';r (Shabd. 72, etc.,
from ~ J D ) . the Gk. Grdfopar, Lat. ordiri.
This verb occurs in OT only in the metaphorical
sense of the beginnings of the human fcetus (Ps. 139 13.
cp 71k1 in the same sense, Job l O r r and the similar
metaphorical use of the Lat. ordin', exordin', exordium).
1 In the vocalisation of the many terns in the sequel found
in Talmudic literature, the pointing adopted by Dalman in his
Aramaisch-Neu~brriisch~s if'brterbuch has been generally
followed.
2 Rieger's suggestion that ''7 may be the shuttle (0). cif. 32)
is inadmissible.
5281
WEAVING
The cognate 7Dz (Is. 257 301) had originally the same
signification. In Is. 30, in particular, as is shown
by Aquila's and Theodotion's rendering brdlopac.
and Jerome's 'ordiremini telani,' we have a metaphor
derived from the warping of the loom in commencing a
new web for the beginning of political intrigue. So
too masszkah (nmn ~ - . -Is. X c . ) and mnsdkcth (mqp, Judg.
1 6 1 3 3 , Mishna, passint) are both primarily the ' warp,'
then by metonymy the 'web.' Another technical
term for warping was ne$ (cp Ar. sadk in this sense),
which is to be restored for the corrupt M T in Is. 1910
(see modern edd. for reading T P V , to be rendered ' those
that warp it [in the loom]') as already by an early hand
of @M bta~6pevoc,which has every probability of being
more correct than the non-technical tppya{bpwoc of the
other copyists. Here we find an unexpected confirma-
tion of the traditional rendering of -n? (Lev. 1348&'f,
cp Ar. masdt) as ' the warp,' the sense which it regularly
has in the Mishna, but which the majority of comnien-
tators have refused to recognise here, a position reflected
in RVmg. ' woven or knitted stuff' for ' warp or woof.'
T h e obscure word "$3 (Is.3812 AV 'pining sickness,'
RV 'loom ') seems also, from its etymology (cp Cant. 7 6
[ 5 ] where it denotes the spreading tresses of a woman's
hair), to have originally signified ' warp,' the igip: 'nf
of the Mishna, then perhaps, by metonymy, the loom.
Now the essential movements in the process of weav-
ing are three in number. These are ( I ) the ' shedding'
6. Bhedding. of the warp, that is, in its simplest form,
the dividing of the warp into two sets of
the odd and the even threads respectively, to allow of
the passage between them of the weft, the opening
through which the latter passes being technically known
as the 'shed,' (2) the passing of the weft through the
' shed ' by means of a rod, needle, or other contrivance
serving as a shuttle, and ( 3 ) the beating up of the weft
to form with the warp a web of uniform consistence
throughout. The first of these movements is the most
complicated and demands a closer study. In the
medizval and modern horizontal loom, as found from
the Atlantic to the Ganges. the oprration of shedding
is effected by a pair of heald- or heddle-frames worked
by treadles underneath the loom. This arrangement,
the result of a long process of evolution, is believed by
some of the best authorities, as we have indicated in
an earlier section, to have been adopted with the
horizontal type of loom by the classical peoples before
the Christian era. Rieger, in his frequently cited mono-
graph on the arts of spinning and weaving in the period
of the Mishna, even goes so far as to provide the upright
Jewish loom with an arrangement of pedals (H?! 's2 op.
cit. 30). T h e evidence, however, for the presence of
the horizontal loom N. of the Mediterranean before the
middle ages is of the slenderest character, and for the
use of treadles is absolutely non-existent (see Ahrens,
Philologus, 3 5 3 8 5 5 ; Yates and Marindin in Smith's
Did. 2768f:).
The various stages in the evolution of the apparatus
for rapid shedding may be thus briefly traced. In the
earliest stage of all, when weaving was scarcely as yet
differentiated from plaiting, ' the transverse threads were
inserted laboriously by the fingers,' as in the case thus
described by Palmer (see above, $ 3 ) . It was soon per-
ceived, however, that by inserting a flat lathe or a rod
3ver and under every alternate warp thread, so that, let
us say, all the odd threads were above the lathe and all
the even threads under it, a shed could be rapidly
formed by turning the lathe through an angle of go",
1 The introduction of' knitting' here is a curious anachronism
this art, according to Beckmann's History qflnwntipns, havini
wobably been invented in Scotland not long before the year
r5oo A.D. (Yates, op. C i t . 6f3.
2 For what we believe to he the true explanation of this
:ethnical term, see below, col. 5285f:
5282
 WEAVING
and the weft passed through by means of a pointed
stick with which (or with the lathe) it was then beat up.
This stage is represented by the Arab horizontal loom
described by Burckhardt (h'utes on the Bedouin and
Wahaby, 67 f:) : ' to keep the upper and under woof
(read ' w a r p ' ) at a proper distance from each other a
flat stick is placed between them. A piece of wood
serves as the weaver's shuttle, and a short gazelle's horn
is used in beating back the thread of the shuttle.'
IVith a single dividing rod, however, it must still have
been necessary to insert every alternate weft thread by
means of this primitive shuttle over the odd threads (in
the case supposed) and under the even threads, since the
formation of a second shed requires a second rod. This,
however, was the next stage of the evolutionary process
now being traced, and is already represented in the
early Egyptian loom reproduced above (fig. I). Here
we note the presence of two rods in close connection
with the warp ; the one, d , a plain rod inserted between
the two halves of the warp-let us say, as before, that the
odd threads, I, 3, 5, etc., pass over the rod,' the even
threads, 2, 4: 6, etc., under it-the other rod, e, which
must lie outside and above the warp, crossed by a series
of threads which are represented in the picture by short
diagonal lines. The invention of this simple device for
expediting the operation of shedding deserves to rank
with that of the 'flying shuttle,'2 for by this means
almost twice as much work could be done in a given
time. A single rod, such as d, as we have seen, is
capable of forming but one shed, which allows the weft
to be passed under the odd and oner the even threads of
the warp only. Now in order that warp and weft shall
be properly interlaced to form the web, it is necessary
that in returning the weft shall pass under the even and
over the odd warp threads. T o effect this each of the
even threads passing under the rod d is attached by a
loop to the rod e. Therefore by simply raising this rod
-in the upright loom by its being drawn towards the
operator standing in front of the loom-all the even
threads are pulled upwards (or forwards) so as to be
above (or in front of) the odd threads and thus a second
shed is formed through which the weft is passed. Rod
d is again raised, then e , and so on alternately. But
this cannot be done with the rods in the relative
positions which they occupy in fig. I, for if the reader
will make the experiment on a model with twenty or
twenty-four warp threads, he will find that the shed
formed by raising the rod e with its attachment of loops
will not reach to the edge of the web owing to the
obstruction caused by the rod d. Braulik, who alone,
apparently, of previous writers has attempted to describe
the exact modus operandi of the Egyptian loom, has over-
looked this defect in the artist's picture and has even
gone so far as to assume, contrary to his own descrip-
tion of the drawing, that both rods were worked in the
same manner as rod e (see Braulik, 09.cit. fig. 92, p. 62).
T h e true explanation is that the artist-if we assume
the correctness of the reproduction in fig. I-being un-
skilled in the technique of weaving, has reversed the
trne position of the rods, since it will be found by experi-
ment that with two such rods, the one separating the two
leaves of the warp, the other attached to the lower leaf
by a series of looped threads, the latter rod must always
be placed nearer to the edge of the web. This holds
good of both types of loom and of both methods of
weaving on the upright loom, namely from above or
from below (see below, 5 8 ) .
The principle here enunciated for the first time will he im-
mediately recognised as indispensable from the following
diagrams in which the letters correspond to those of fig. I , with
the addition of x to denote the odd, y the even threads of the
warp, and z the web.
-~ ..
1 The prepositions 'over' and 'under' are here used with
special reference to the horizontal loom, fig. I ;but the principle complex looms, hut of the horizontal type, with as many as 8 0
of the upright loom in fig. 2 ;is essentially the same; only in this to go shafts see EBP) 24 465. Moore's rendering of the above
case the prepositions ' hefore ' an? 'behind ' must of course he
substituted for 'over and ' under.
2 By John Kay of Bury in 1733.
5283
WEAVING
Fig. 3 shows the formation of the first or natural shed at r
through the raising of the odd warp threads by the rod d,fig. 4
the formation of the second or artificial shed at s through the
raising of the even threads by the rod e.
The final stage, we are convinced, in the evolution of
the shedding apparatus for plain weaving on the looms
of antiquity was reached, when in the case of the upnght
2 d X
0 X
w Y 0
FIG. 4.
loom it was found expedient to attach both sets of the
warp, the odd and the even threads alike, by loops or
leashes to a couple of rods, which we shall henceforth
call leash-rods, both being suspended in front of the
warp from the jugum or upper crossbeam of the loom, or
from the second of the top beams if there were two, as
in the case of the Theban loom in fig. 2. Here, so far
as the imperfect condition of the picture enables us to
infer, we have a rod g near the top of the loom, doubt-
less dividing the warp into two sets ( ' stamen secernit
arundo,' Ovid, Met. 655) to facilitate the attachment of
the leashes to the leash-rods h,i, all three suspended
from the yarn-beam 6. By pulling forward h and i
alternately, are formed the alternate sheds through
which the weft-thread R is passed.
We come now to the perplexing question of the
Hebrew terminology of the apparatus just described.
T h e single reed of the more primitive loom was termed
by the Greeks Kavhv, by the Romans arundo; in the more
elaborate looms, such as fig 2, we find not only ~ a v b v e s
and KdXapoc but also in d dvrlov (see below), in Latin
Ziciafon'a, as the names of the leash-rods to which the
warp-strings were attached by means of loops or leashes
of thread (hence called p i ~ o c ,Zicia), corresponding to
the healds or heddles of the modern loom. Now the
Ziciaforiuin or leash-rod of the classical loom was named
by the Jews of N T times not only kdneh m~ (OhoL 84,
here mentioned along with the spatha [see infra], Jer.
Shadb. 105),but also as Jastrow (Dict.,S.Z.) and Rieger
(09.cit. 29) have rightly perceived, n i r (-I*! pZ. nirfna
and 4%).Etymologically identical with the Assyrian
nivu, a yoke, this term might be applied to any trans-
verse rod or beam, hence to the leash-rods or shafts
of a loom. This meaning alone suits the (textually
corrupt) description of the veil of the temple in ShPkdlim
8 5 , of which many wonderful renderings have been
given by lexicographers and commentators.
This veil, we read, 'was a handbreadth thick and was woven
upon 7 2 rods (I,??), and over each rod (N1.11 Nl.3 h-5yl-so we
must read for nimin and ninza of the ordinary text) were 24
leashes (7.~3n lit. ' threads,' cp Gk. piroc).' 2 These two ni~z9z
of the ordinary loom might be suspendedbycords passing over the
cross beam as in fig. a, or from a peg (1:) projecting from either
end of the beam in question, ' two rods on one peg, and two pegs
1 The conjecture may be hazarded that the hvriov was at first
therod which lay or hung outside, as if opposite to(bvn? the warp
(see e of fig. I), as distinguished from the r a v h , d,which latter
again may be the psodvrcov of certain MSS. of C6 (I S. 17 7-for
the strange variety of readings in d see Moore, Proc. ofAm. Or.
Sac. 1889, p. clxxvii).
2 The arrangement is not essentially different if we take p 1 n
~.here of the threads of the war , in which case each nir would
resemble not e but d of fig. I . %or the modus operandi of such
passage (Z.c ) 'and on every thread (nima of text? receptus),
namely of th; warp were 24 strings (connecting it with as many
is
different heddles)' unintelligible to the present writer.
5284
 WEUVING
for one rod ’ (Jer. Shu66.72, so Rieger ; cp illustr. o j . cif.). This
identification of the ninn with the liciufmia of the contem-
r y Roman looms must be maintained against that of
aimonides and other commentators who identify the ntrZn
with ‘the threads wound round the rods (O’JG, sav6uer,
urwndines), by which the warp-threads are raised etc.’ (see
a#. Surenh. Mishna, K d i m 21r), in other word; with the
leashes ( p i r o ~iiciu) to which we come presently. Equally im-
possible is Moore’s identificationo f n i r (PAOS, 1889, p. clxxix)
with the ‘gear ’ of thedevelopedhorizontal loom-which certainly
bears this name (nir) in modern Arabic-consisting of two
heddle-leaves, connected by spring-staves or otherwise with a
pair of treadles. For not only have we no evidence, as has heen
already maintained; of the presence of treadles in the ancient
looms, but it is difficult I:O see how they could be conveniently
adjusted in the upright loom of the Mishna.’
The identification of the n i r with the shaft or leash-
rod (Ziciciatorium) of the ancient loom, here maintained,
gives us a clue to the mysterious mln5r ’firt’gim,iiJp
o*iiiC of I S. 1 7 7 2 S. 2119 I Ch. 1123 205 to which the
shAft of a giant’s spear might be compared,2 for i i i g
cannot be separated etymologically from i ’ (see ~ BDB,
r.v.). Now the shaft of a good-sized loom with a
heavy warp must have been considerably thicker than
the ordinary light spear-shaft (see the actual dvsiov or
Ziciaforiurn of a modern Lycian loom, apparently a
branch of a tree, reproduced from Benndorf in S m i t h s
Did. Ant.(3)2769). and seems to satisfy all the con-
ditions. In support of this view we have (I) the ex-
pression itself, ‘ like the weavers’ shaft,’ which suggests
something usually in the weaver’s hand, rather than a
fixture of the loom such as the cloth or yarn-beam (see
below) ; (a) the testimony of the oldest versions. 6 in
three places has dvsiov, a synonym of K U U (see ~ the
authorities in Bliimner, op. cit. 1132) ; so also Aquila
and Theodotion in I S.1 7 7 where the MSS. of @ have
a set of curious variants (see ref. to Moore above), all,
however, identified by the later Greek lexicographers
with the leash-rod, the Iiciaton‘um tezentium of Jerome
in all the passages cited.
The less probable rendering of EV ‘a weaver’s beam,’ has the
sanction of the Targum and of Jewish commentators of note.
Thus Rashi (on I S . 17 j ) quotes with evident approval the Tg.
rendering ~ ‘ ~ i i 1i i l~ (i.e.,
1 b~ b v yepSiov, the weavers’ roller)
adding <inthe vernacular [French] it is emudle.’ The latter at
once suggests the i m z 6 d i of the Roman loom, rightly explained
by Yates and Marindin (Smith, Dict.@J,2765 6) as the yarn and
cloth beams of the upright loom (6 and d of fig. 2, above) an
identification of which Kashi’s comments, both here and’ on
Judg. 16 13&,3 supply a hitherto unnoticed corroboration.
T h e leash-rod, as .we have seen, was passed through
a series of loops or leashes of thread, each loop also
passing behind every alternate warp-thread. These
leashes, the pisor and Gcia of the classical looms, must
be identified with the *!I (sing. ~ 1 -3
T. .. domus
~ 1 Zicia-
ton‘i) of the Mishna (Shad6. 72 13z), of which also
many curious explanations have been offered, the latest
being none the less objectionable that it is given without
any qualification. ‘ T h e raising of the shafts,’ says
Rieger (op. cit. 30), ‘was usually effected by a n arrange-
ment of treadles (KTJ *>), the shafts being joined t o
pedals by cords,’ a statement absolutely unsupported by
the accompanying references. T h e key to this enig-
matical expression will be found in the idiomatic use of
62th in compounds familar to every Semitic scholar. I n
the O T we have an exact parallel in OT?! ’?I (Ex. 2527
1 This is the least satisfactory part of Rieger’s attempted re-
construction nf the Jewish loom in his monograph, Versuch, etc.
2 Ahrens in Philologogus (vol. 35 pof.), gives an extract from
an old Nor;e saga, in which also the shafts of the loom are com-
pared with the warrior’s spear.
3 Rashi, however, on this passage wrongly defines n?Jp,
which he takes as a nomen insfnrmenti from 9D*?to ‘ warp’
(see 0 s), as ‘the wooden beam on which the weaver mounts
the warp, in the vernacular easudle’ which may apply to
either cloth or yarn-beam This codment has been entirely
misunderstood by Moore (2.c. clxxvii), who strangely supposes
Rashi to refer to the ‘heddles’of the developed horizontal loom,
and takes the 1iiQto be the cross-beam-the jUgt,m of Mar-
quardt and Bliimner’suntenable theory-from which the heddles
are suspended.
5285
WEaVING
etc., lit. ‘houses for the staves’), and n*& *g? (Ex.
2629 etc., lit. ’ houses for the bars ‘), explained in each
case by n i y p , rings. T h e 6dt2 nirin, therefore, are the
loops or rings of thread through which the nirin or
leash-rods are passed. T h e identification here proposed
suits admirably the passage Shabb. 7 z where the opera-
tion of ‘ making two bite‘ nin-n ’ intervenes between the
warping ( $ g m ) and the weaving; so also in Sha66. 132
’ h e that fastens two leashes (baU nircn) to the leash-
rods ( n i r i n ) ’ before beginning to weave. Bit2 n i r i n ,
in short, is the idiomatic equivalent of the loan-word
ps Iicia ( Tus. Neg. 5 IO).
T h e shed having been formed as explained in detail
above, the weaver proceeded to pass the weft ( m y ;
7.
and K p b K q , ; subternen ; c p Lev. 1348 8 ,
beating up my? >H * n f l i N d 4 6v d p o v i 4 &
K ~ P ~ K Y , AV ‘ i n the warp or woof’).
This was done bv means of a flat stick
or lathe somewhat longer than <he width of the web,
carrying sufficient weft by a hook at the end, which
also served, as in many places a t the present day, for
a batten to beat u p the w-eft (so, most probably, in fig. I
the curved stick e serves both purposes). Later the
functions of shuttle and batten were differentiated ; the
rod which the Egyptian weaver holds in his right hand in
fig. z serves to all appearance as a shuttle, and suggests
the corresponding radius of the Romans (cp Ovid’s ’ in-
seritur medium radiis subtemen acntis’), the KEPKIS of the
Greeks. Even so early as Homer’s time, this shuttle-
rod appears to have been fitted with a revolving spool
( r q v l o v ) , on which the weft was wound, and from which
it unwound itself in passing through the shed.
Rieger (op. cif. 31 34) has attempted, with doubtful success, to
discover the various parts of the classical shuttle, regarding
which there is still much uncertainty, in the Talmudic writings.
It is scarcely safe to go beyond the conjecture that the Beg, or
weaver’s needle, and the pointed l?lp ( K C ~ K ~Sku66.8 , 6) may
be the native and the imported names of the combined shuttle
and batten. The herkid was certainly used to beat up (UT<
IC olicrv) the weft. For this purpose the Greeks used a seord-
sRaped lathe; resembling a modern paper-cutter on a large scale,
the or&&, adopted both by the Koiiians (spatha) and the
Jews (‘n?DN Ohol. 8 4). When the older type of upright loom,
in which the warp was stretched by means ofweights, was super-
seded by the Egyptian type with the yarn and cloth beams,
the Egyptian comb (XT& jec+z, Martial’s fiiliacutfr
fiecfen, illust. from Wilkinso; in Rich, s.v., with which cp the
modern comb from Asia Minor, Smith, Dic!.Csl 2 768 a ) was
introduced, and the weft driven home by inserting the teeth of
the comb between the warp threads. The obscure Oil’z (raipos)
of Sku66.13 z Kei. 21 I is identified by Maimonides(see on latter
passage a Surenh.) and others with this comb, a very doubtful
equati0n.t To judge from its original sense (for which see
Bliimner, op. cit. 1126)~the &xis was rather some arrangement
of loops and cords stretched across the loom to ensure that the
web was kept of :uniform width.
One interesting reference to the beating up of the
weft has been preserved in the O T , the recovery of
which in modern times is due t o G. F. Moore in the
paper to which reference has frequently been made
(Proc. Am. Or. Suc., 1889). In Judg.l613f.-a
passage which has suffered considerable curtailment in
M T (see Moore’s Comm. and his editions [Heb. and
Eng.] of Judges in SBOT, also Bu. and Now. in Juc.)
-Delilah is told t o weave the seven braids of Samson’s
hair with the warp and to beat them u p (y??) with the
pin (in;, the batten or spatha).2 T h e inadmissible
rendering of EV, ‘ to fasten with the pin,’ is due to the
1 Still more doubtful is Rieger’s identificationof the k2n% with
a fully developed modern ‘reed,’an apparatus found bnly with
the horizontal loom ( o j . cif. 34).
a With this sense of ill; as a flat instrument with a thin edge
like a papasutter, cp Dt. 23 14(131, also Sha66. 174, where, it
denotes the flat point of the ploughshare (illust. Vogelstem,
Die Landwirfhchajt in Palasfine, 79). The ungrammatical
form in which it occurs in Judg. 16 r 4 (I!!? ’1 shows it to
l?:,-)
be an intruder here (Moore), so that we may dispense with the
inquiry as to what is intended by ‘the pin of the beam’ (EV).
5286
 WEAVING
influence of the early translators, who had formed a
quite erroneous, though intelligible and consistent, con-
ception of the details of the incident.l
In the case of the older classical loom, the tela
$enduZa, open below, the operator had no alternative
Direction but to commence his web at the top of the
of web. loom ; he had also to weave standing.
With the looms figured above, on the
contrary, the web might be begun at either end of the
low loom (fig. I), and at either top or bottom of the
high loom (fig. 2). According to Herodotus (235)
‘ other nations push the weft upwards,’ i e . , commence
at the top of the loom, ‘ the Egyptians, on the other
hand, push it downwards,’ L e . , commence a t the
bottom. T h e position of the leash-rods in fig. 2,
~elativeto the weft at I , shows that Herodotus is right
as regards the usual Egyptian practice, although
absolute uniformity is scarcely probable. The operator,
as we further see, was able to remain in a sitting posture
while the lower half of the web, at least, was being
woven, and if, as we have inferred is the case in Fig. 2,
the loom was provided with a cloth-beam, he might at
the expense of a yard of warp remain seated throughout.
That the Jews in N T times wove from the top down-
wards is a probable, though by no means conclusive,
inference from the description of the tunic of Jesus
which was woven PK rDv &vwOev at’ Cihou (Jn. 1923, for
which see also below), a phrase which strictly means-
as paraphrased by Delitzsch in his Hebrew rendering-
‘ from collar to selvage.’ That the inference is a COT-
rect one, however, is attested by Theophylact, archbishop
of Bnlgaria, about 1070, who, with reference to the
passage just cited, comments thus : ‘Others say that
i n Palestine they work their looms not as with us
(among whom) the leashes and the warp are at the top,
the web being woven at the bottom and thence upwards,
but on the contrary, the leashes (pluiroc=dZtZ nirin) are
a t the bottom and the web i s woven from the top’ ( A d
loann. 18825 ; cp the similar though less explicit testi-
mony for Galilee, quoted from Isidorus Pelusiota by
Ahrens : Philol. 35390).
T h e web having reached the desired length, it was
severed from the remaining~. - -. Is. 3812,
warp threads (ytm,
*’ IKT+WY, Tob. 212 e), and rolled round
the cloth-beam (hence the figure in Is. ibid.:
processes’~ .R :-..
T S ~ JRV
, ’ I have rolled up like a weaver
m y life’), for removal from the loom. Linen in this
undressed (&yva@os,Mt. 916 Mk. 221 RV-AV ‘new
cloth ’) condition was termed Lj~bXtvov(Ecclus. 4 0 4 , RV
wrongly ‘hempen frock’), and was exposed to less
danger from shrinking, if exposed to wet, than cloth
made from wool. The task of milling or felting the
cloth (to use the modern terms) fell to the F ULLER
( q . ~ ) by
, whom it was steeped in water mixed with
various alkaline ingredients, stamped and beaten to
complete the felting process, then bleached nith fumes
of sulphur, carded to raise the nap, and finally pressed
in the fuller’s press. T o enter into these processes in
detail would extend this article unduly (see for full
references Rieger, op. cit. 39-45, and cp Blumner, op.
Lit. 1157-177).
I n the breceding sections regard has been had only
to the most ordinary sort of weaving, where the warp
lo. Pattern and weft are of the same material, the
and figure weft passing over and under each alter-
weaving. nate thread of the warp. It remains
now to refer briefly to a few of the more
complex varieties of the textile art. T h e Hebrews were
forbidden to follow a custom in vogue among all
nations of combining a warp of flax with a weft of wool,
1 The technical terms employed in the divergent renderina
of @ show that the Greek translators thought of Samson‘s hair
as sfrefclred 7uifh f7ze warp of the horizontal loom the end of
which was fastened by a pin into the opposite wall’(see above-,
0 3). while in MT the braids are clearly intended to be used as
weft.
5287
WJ3AVING
which is probably what is signified by the obscure term
I;?@ (Lev. 1 9 1 9 Dt. 2211). T h e reason for this taboo
was certainly not that given by Josephus ( A n t . iv. 811
[I ZO~]),that garments of this sort were priestly wear,
but must probably be sought in connection with illicit
magical practices (see Goldziher, Z A T W , 1902, pp.
3 6 3 for an Arab parallel, and cp the similar prohibition
against seething a kid in its mother’s milk : see COOK-
ING. § 8 end). T h e simplest variation from the plain
web hitherto discussed, was obtained by using alternately
different coloured wefts, say white and black, or by
mounting the warp in alternate bands of white and
black yarn, by which striped fabrics were produced,
similar to those so much in favour among the Syrian
peasantry at the present day. It is very doubtful, how-
ever, whether the obscure and textually suspicious
~ D nN i y of Prov. 716 (see L INEN, I) means striped
cloth of the yarn of Egypt’ (so RV). T h e coloured
representations of Syrians on Egyptian monuments
show that they ‘ wore narrow close-fitting, plain clothes,
in which dark blue threads alternated with dark red,
and these were generally adorned with embroidery ’
(Erman, Eg. 216f., where also illustration of Syrian
anibasador with dress as just described, the embroidery
being in the form of stars, a form of ornamentation
called oculi by the Romans, Marq. ROm. Privatleben,
526J). By having the warp all of one colour and the
weft all of another, what is known as a ‘ shot’ fabric
was the result. Thus we read of garments ‘of which
the warp is dyed and the weft white, or the weft dyed
and the warp white ‘ (fleg.114). By alternating different
coloured bands, both in warp and woof, further, a ‘check’
or chequered pattern is obtained. Such ‘ chequer work ’
was in great favour in antiquity, as may be seen from
the extant coloured representations, not only for every-
day clothes (see e.g., in the procession of Semitic immi-
grants, part of which is reproduced in colours in Riehm,
IYWB(~), opposite p. 54). but as a pattern for the sails of
vessels (see Wilk. op. c i f . , frontispiece to vol. ii.).
Among the Jews we find mention of ‘ a summer garment
of white and coloured checks’ ( o * D p ? [$+$os]; so
read for D’DBDB, Neg. 117). Joseph’s ‘coat of many
colours’ (D*!? ninp), it need hardly be said, belongs,
according to one line of tradition (6,Vg., see Comm.
on Gen. 3 7 3 ) , to one or other of the categories just
enumerated.
What precise style of weaving is denoted by Siah?! ( ZW, Ex.
2839 AV ‘embroider,’ RV ‘weave in chequer work’) applied to
the high priest’s tunic-hence its description as rs$c nlne
(ib. 4 AV ‘ a broidered coat,’ RV ‘a coat of chequer work’) is
quite uncertain. The revisers, as we see, indicate their prefer-
ence for some kind of check. Braun (de vesiifu sacerdof.[168o],
367-384) argues at great length in favour of Maimonides’view
that a species of honeycomb pattern is intended, resembling the
lining of the second stomach (reticulr~nr)of ruminants.
From the earliest times in the E. we find evidence of
the use of gold, and t o a less extent of silver, to enhance
the richness and value of textile fabrics. Thus, gold
thread, prepared by cutting finely beat plates of gold
into narrow strips (Ex. 3 9 3 ) , was directed to be employed
in the Anufacture of the robes of the high priest (Ex.
2 8 5 J 3 9 2 8 : ) . It was chiefly used as weft (cp Vergil’s
’ picturatas auri subtemine vestes,’ E n . 34833, fabrics
wholly of gold thread being of late and rare occurrence
(Marq. op. cit. 519). The ghostly horsemen of 2 Macc.
5 2 were arrayed in ’cloth of gold’ (AV, G t a ~ p d u o u r
uroXds), so, too, according to the Greek interpretation,
was the royal bride of Ps. 459 [IO] ( i v LparrupG
BlaxpdUy z l*?\K on!:). Holofernes’ mosquito curtain
was of ‘ purple and gold ’ (Judith 10 21). Agrippa’s
royal robe (cp Acts 1221). on the other hand, is described
by Josephus (Ant.xix. 82) as woven throughout of silver
thread.
The rectangular plaid-like upper garment or jimhih
of the Hebrews (M ANTLE , § 2 [I]) was, of course, woven
in one piece ; the undergarment, hZthfh&eflr(TUNIC), on
5288
 WEAVING
the other hand, which had to be more in accordance
with the stature of the wearer, was apparently made by
sewing together two lengths of cloth cut more or less to
measure. This we infer from Josephus' description of
the high priest's tunic ( x ~ T ~ vwhich ), was ' not made of
two pieces, so as to be sewed together upon the shoulders
and down the sides but was woven in one long piece,
etc.' ( A n t . iii. 7 4 [J 1611). T h e tunic worn by Jesus a t
the close of his ministry was also of this sort ; +ju 6P 6
XiT& dpa$os (without seam) C!K TGV dvweev 3$avTbs 61'
(IXou (Jn. 1923). For the manufacture of such seamless
fabrics it was necessary to mount a double warp which
was woven with a continuous weft. The warp threads,
that is, were so arranged as to lie on both sides of the
upper beam, each face of the warp being provided with
its own set of leash-rods. The operator, if there was
but one, had to pass the weft across first one face, and
then the other in succession by going round and round
the loom. a procedure which, of course, could be
obviated by having two operators for the same loom.
In this way a cylindrical web was produced. Whether
the sleeves were worked a t the same time, as Braun in
his classical treatment of this style of weaving maintains
( o f . cit. with illustration of specially constructed loom
opposite p. 360) is less certain. It may also be noted
t h a t Braulik (09. cil. with technical diagrams, z 8 $ ,
7 7 J , 8 9 J ) has discovered that the Egyptians from, at
the latest, the time of the twenty-second dynasty, were
familiar with a similar style of seamless fabrics, as
indeed might have been inferred from the extremely
tight-fitting garments represented on some of the
Egyptian statues.
The finest products of the textile art known to the
Hebrews are evidently intended to be represented as
the work of the craftsman designated by the authors of
the priestly code the +CGb ( 3 g h Ex.261 31, and often),
literally, the designer, inventor, artist. Three grades
of craftsmanship, i t will be remembered, are mentioned
together in the directions for the construction of the
tabernacle and the priestly robes : the ordinary weaver
(n,k), the rCk& (~$1, Ex.2636. and often), and the
+ G b . The nature of the work (a???) produced by the
second of these has been the subject of much discussion.
German scholars, as a rule, understand merely colour-
weaving (Buntweberei), such as we have discussed
-above; but various considerations which cannot be
detailed here (see E MBROIDERY, and the writer's forth-
coming commentary on Exodus in the Intern. Crit.
Series) lead to the belief that embroidery, the opus
plumarium of the ancients, is intended. There is a
greater consensus of opinion in favour of identifying
the len q@p ! (Ex.261. etc. EV ' work of the cunning
workman ') with tapestry. This differs from ordinary
weaving in respect that the weft is not thrown across
the warp by a shuttle, but the design is traced by
inserting short coloured threads by the fingers, or by
a ' broach' or needle, behind as many warp threads
only as may be required. T h e high loom in use in the
celebrated Gobelins factory is almost an exact repro-
duction of the E,gyptian loom of fig. z above (E.
Muntz, A Short History of Tapestry, 5 [where, however,
the reference is t'3 our fig. I], and especially 3 5 6 8
with illustrations). Indeed, it is by no means improb-
able that the picture in question is that of a tapestry
rather than of an ordinary weaver. T h e curtains of
the tabernacle are clearly intended to be of tapestry
with cherubim figures; so too, the veil both of the
tabernacle (Ex.2631) and of Solomon's temple ( 2 Ch.
314; cp Heb. 'yi - ~.with d K C L ~i;$rrvcv K . T . X . ) . Jewish
tapestry was celebrated at a later period, and noted for
the unnatural figures of animals designed by the Jewish
artists (Claudian in Eutrop. 1 3 5 0 8 , cited by Marquardt).
The tapestry worker was known to the classical world
as po&mifan'us (Jerome's rendering of + C M ) , and his
work po@ymita (roXbpiros, used by Symmachus Ezek.
5289
WEEX
1613 2716), because as explained by I'liny (HN81961
he wove ' plurimis liciis,' that is, with weft threads
of various colours (cp Isidorus, Omg. xix. 2221 : po?y-
mitus enim textus multorum colorum est '). In kV
a tapestry ' is twice introduced (Prov. 7 16 3.1 zz) ; but
the sense and even the text of the original are doubtful
(see the Comm. ).
It only rcmains to add that the weavers as a class
enjoyed a bad reputation among their countrymen, many
curious illustrations of which have been collected by
Delitzsch (Jiid. Handwerkerleben, 458 ). Like other
craftsmen, however, in NT times, those of Jerusalem
formed a strong guild, the beginning of which may be
traced back to at least the days of the Chronicler ( I Ch.
421).
The literature of the subject has been referred to with some
detail in the course of the article. A. R . S. K.
WEDGE. I. OW>, I@&, Josh. 721 24.
2. On?, K&hem, Is. 13 12 RV ' pure gold ' ; see GOLD, 0 I e.
WEEDS (VlD), Jon. 25. See FLAG.
WEEK. T h e subdivisioq. of the month into weeks,
as also into decades CEiCr, l W ~ ) - t h e week represent-
1. origin, ing approximately a fourth, the decade a
third, of 29-30 days-is of great antiquity.
The old Hebrew for the weekof seven days is &?12W,Sibzia"
--i.e.. a seven,a heptad 2 ( = G k . 6p6oCL(I.sI Lat. septi-
manu); c p Gen.2927 (d ~b hp6opa). I n later times
I@,Sub&ith, also was currently employed, although only
four instances of its use for ' w e e k ' are met with in
OT-viz., Lev. 23 15 [cp Dt. 1 6 91 Lev. 25 6 Nu. 28 I O and
Is. 66 23-and in Aramaic it became the ordinary word
(tic?@or N@ ; cp also Arab. sunbu and sanbata = ' a
short space of time'). Similarly in N T the week is
never called bpGopds, but invariably only U ~ ~ ~ U TorO V'
U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~(pl.)
C L T C CMk. 169 Lk. 1812 Mt. 281.
; cp
This quadripartite division of the month into weeks
was naturally suggested by the phases of the moon and
was far from being peculiar to the Hebrews. In par-
ticular it has been shown to have been a n ancient
institution with the Babylonians, and even in their case
it had nothing to do with the number of the seven
planets, after which at a later date the days of the week
came to be named. Whether the Israelites used the
week as a division of time even in their nomadic stage
remains obscure. It is not inipossible that they may
have derived it from the Babylonians even before
their settlement in Canaan, as the Canaanites also had
done. However that may be, the developmetit of the
seventh day into a day of rest must certainly be
referred to the time when the Israelites had already
become an agricultural people (see S ABBATH).
The mode of reckoning among the Israelites was
originally doubtless the same as that of the Babylonians
2. Mode of -viz., by dividing the first 28 days
reckoning. of each month into four weeks terminat-
ing respectively on the 7th, Iqth, ~ 1 s t .
and 28th day, and by making the first week of the new
month always begin with the new moon. This intimate
connection, however, between the week and the month
was soon dissolved (cp the expression ' feast of weeks '
in Ex. 3422 [J]). Whether the preponderance which
the Sabbath day, as marking the close of the week,
acquired over the day of new moon, was a cause or
a consequence of the loosening of the connection it is
impossible to determine ; we are not precluded from
supposing that quite other reasons may have contri-
1 Licium(=pims), has this meaning here, not the special and
technical sense which it had above.
2 In view of this original meaning of the word it becomes
possible for p@ in Dan.924-27 to mean a week of years
:annonrm Rebdonzas). Cp the corresponding use of n?w
with the explanatory addition of @a$(Lev. 2 5 8 : ring@ p?$
Y??,' seven weeks of years 7.
5290