Phrygia – Pispah

Phrygia

The Phrygians were an Aryan race who seem to have had their first home in Thrace, and to have crossed into Asia through the same southward movement of tribes that brought the Hellenes into Greece. In Asia they occupied at one time the greater part of the country W. of the Halys, probably displacing a Semitic race from whom they may have learned the worship of Cybele. We must regard Homer’s Trojans as part of the Phrygian race, and the Trojan War as a contest between them and Greek settlers from Thessaly. In more historical times the name Phrygia applies to an inland region varying in extent at different times, but bounded at its widest by the Sangarius on the N., the Halys on the E., the Taurus range on the S. It thus covered the W. part of the great plateau of Asia Minor and the upper valleys of the rivers Maeander and Hermus. It was a region fruitful in oil and wine, exporting also wool, gold, marble, and salt.

When the Romans inherited the kingdom of Pergamus iuB.c. 133, a part of Phrygia was included in the province of Asia, but the southern portion towards Pamphylia was not included. This portion was in the hands of the dependent king of Galatia when Augustus constituted Galatia a province in B.C. 25, and was therefore included in the new province which extended from Lycia on the S.W. almost to the mouth of the Halys on the N.E. Hence this portion of Phrygia, with its cities of Antioch and Iconium, came to be known as Phrygia Galatica.

This country was included by St. Paul in the work of his first missionary journey (Acts 13:14). From Perga he and Barnabas made their way N. along the difficult mountain road to Antioch, here called ‘Pisidian Antioch’ (see PisiDiA) . On his second missionary j ourney St. Paul (now accompanied by Silas) began with the churches of Cilicia and then passed through Derbe and Lystra, where he took Timothy into his company. The narrative then proceeds (Acts 16:6) ‘And they went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia [Gr.’ the Phrygian and Galatian region’), having been forbidden [AV ‘and were forbidden’] of the Holy Ghost to speak the word in Asia; and when they were come over against Mysia they assayed to go into Bithynia; and the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not; and passing by Mysia they came down to Troas.’ The natural interpretation of this is that from Lystra they traversed Phrygia Galatica, from Antioch took the road leading N. to Dorylaion, where they would be near Bithynia, and from there were directed W. to Troas. Attempts have been made, however, to find here an evangelization of Galatia proper with its towns of Pessinus and Ancyra. But against this we must set (1) the form of the Greek phrase ‘the Phrygian and Galatian region’; (2) the strange silence of St. Luke about a work that must have taken a considerable time; (3) the geographical consideration that the travellers could not have crossed the desert of the Axylon straight from S. to N. and must in any case have used the road to Dorylaion. See, further, artt. Galatia and Galatians [Ep. to] for this and the further question whether the Epistle to the Galatians can have been written to the churches of Phrygia Galatica. If it was, we have an interesting glimpse of how in the churches first founded by St. Paul his authority was very soon (perhaps A.D. 50) assailed by Judaizers, who disputed his Apostolic credentials and declared his doctrine to be an imperfect form of Christianity, neglecting its Jewish basis.

The third missionary journey likewise began with ‘the region of Galatia and Phrygia’ (Acts 18:23). or ‘the Galatian region and Phrygia.’ Here the reference is probably to the same churches, but the order of words is doubtless meant to include the churches of Lycaonia first — these were in the province of Galatia, but were not in Phrygia. The order is in any case strongly against the inclusion of Galatia proper. The journey was continued ‘through the upper country to Ephesus,’ i.e. along the direct route which passed through the higher country from Metropolis to Ephesus, instead of the high road which followed the valley of the Lycus.

A. E. HiLLARD.

Phygelus

Mentioned in company with Hermogenes in St. Paul’s last Epistle, as those in Asia who, among others, had turned away from the Apostle (2 Ti 1’5). See Hermogenes. Morley Stevenson.

Phylacteries, Frontlets

1. Among the charges brought by our Lord against the Pharisees of His day we read: ‘but all their works they do for to be seen of men: for they make broad their phylacteries and enlarge the borders of their garments’J(Mt 23’- for ‘borders’ see Fringes). This is the only Biblical reference to one of the most characteristic institutions of the Judaism of the first century as of the twentieth. The word ‘phylactery’ (Gr. phylactlrion) literally signifies a ‘safe-guard,’ as safe-guarding the wearer against the attacks of hurtful spirits and other malign influences such as the evil eye — in other words, an amulet. By the Jews then as now, however, the phylacteries were termed tephillin, the plural of the ordinary word for ‘prayer.’

2. For information regarding the phylacteries of our Lord’s day we are dependent on the somewhat later allusions in the Mishna, with which the modern Jewish usage agrees in all essential points. Then, as now, they consisted of two small square cases or capsules of leather, ‘two finger-breadths’ according to the Talmud, say li inch, in the side, one of which was worn on the forehead, the other on the left upper arm. The leather had to be prepared from the skin of a ritually ‘clean’ animal, and was coloured a deep black.

The case for the forehead, which was termed the ‘head-tephillah,’ was distinguished from the ‘arm-‘or’ hand-tephillah ‘by its being shaped so as to give four small but distinct compartments, while its fellow consisted of a single compartment. In each of the four compartments of the former was placed a narrow strip of parchment, also from the skin of a’ clean’ animal, having carefully written on it one of the Pentateuch passages which were regarded as the Scripture warrant for the institution of the phylacteries (see § 4). These were Exodus 13:1–10 13:11–16, Deuteronomy 6:4–9 ll"-2i. The companion capsule, on the other hand, contained the same four passages written on a single strip of parchment. Each case was then closed by folding back the lower half of the square of stout leather from which it projected, space being left at the told for the passing of a long strap, blackened on the upper side, by which each phylactery was kept in position when properly ‘laid.’ The strap of the head-phylactery was tied behind the head into a knot having the shape of the Hebrew letter daleth. On the two sides of the capsule were impressed the letter shin, on one side with the usual three prongs, on the other with four prongs. The corresponding loop of the phylactery for the arm was supposed to form the letter yBd, the three letters together giving the sacred name Shaddai, ‘Almighty.’

3. From the Mishna we learn further that women, slaves, and minors were exempted from the obligation of wearing, or in technical phrase ‘laying,’ the tephillin, a duty still incumbent on all male Israelites, from the age of thirteen years and a day, during the recital of morning prayer, on all days save Sabbaths and festivals. These, being themselves ‘signs,’ rendered the phylacteries unnecessary for this purpose (Exodus 13:9; cf. § 4 below). It is probable, however, that in our Lord’s time, as was the case later, the more zealous spirits among the Pharisees wore their phylacteries during the whole day.

In putting on the phylacteries that of the hand is ■ laid’ first, to the accompaniment of a prescribed prayer, and must lie on the inner side of the left arm, which must be bare, a little above the elbow, so that the case with the Scripture passages may rest upon the heart (Deuteronomy 11:18). The strap is then drawn tight and wound round the arm and the middle finger of the left hand a prescribed number of times. (For details see Hastings’ DB iii. 870.) The head-phylactery is next laid, its position being the middle of the forehead, ‘between the eyes’ (Exodus 13:9 etc., see next §), with the knot above described at the back of the head, and the two ends of the strap brought forward to hang down over the breast in front. The phylacteries are taken o£E in the reverse order. When not in use, they are kept in a bag, which is often made of superior material richly ornamented(seeillust. in J’cmsftEncycs.D.’ Phylacteries’).

4. The Scripture warrant for this peculiar institution of Judaism is found in the four passages. Exodus 13. Deuteronomy 6:8 ll’s. Of these Deuteronomy 6:8 may be quoted as the most explicit: ‘And thou shalt bind them’ — i.e. ‘these words which I command thee this day,’ v. a su/n upon thine hand, and they shall be for frontlets between thine eyes.’ These words and their parallels in the other passages, it is maintained by Jewish and some Christian scholars, are intended by their authors to be taken literally. This contention has been examined in detail in the corresponding article in Hastings’ DB (iii. 870-72). The result is a verdict in favour of the figurative interpretation of all the passages, including that just cited. A good deal turns on the sense of the word rendered ‘frontlets’ itataphdth). This rendering (cf. Oxf. Heb. Lex. ‘bands,’ ‘frontlet-bands’) cannot be maintained in face of the evidence for the rendering ‘jewel’ or ‘amulet,’ the meaning which the word has In the Heb. text of Sirach 36:3 (= AV 33:3). as read by Smend in his edition of the text and commentary (both 1906): ‘the law is for the wise man an amulet, a band (or knot) upon the hand.’ In Mishna, also, Shabbath, vi. 1, 5, totepheth signifies an ornament in a lady’s head-dress.

We conclude, then, that the Pentateuch writers really intended by these metaphors to impress upon God’s people that His word was to be to them a treasure more precious than any jewel. The figures were derived from the prevailing custom of wearing jewels on the forehead and on the wrists both as ornaments and as amulets (see Amulets, Oknaments). On the other hand, it the literal interpretation is followed, we should have to recognize another of the numerous instances in the Hebrew legislation, in which a deeply rooted and ineradicable practice of heathen origin and superstitious associations was adopted and given a religious signification, precisely as was done with the kindred sign of the tassels on the corners of the mantle (see Fhinges, end).

5. The date at which this literal interpretation was first given effect to and the wearing of the phylacteries introduced cannot be determined with certainty. The fact that the institution is unknown to the Samaritans shows that it must have arisen after the date of the Samaritan schism. The passage of Jesus Sirach above quoted (written c. B.C. 180-170) seems to imply that the figurative interpretation still held the field. On the other hand, the writer of the famous ‘Letter of Aristeas’ (scarcely later than b.c. 90) distinctly mentions (§ 159) the binding of ‘the sign upon the hand’ (see Thackeray’s tr. in JQB xv: 368 f.). We may, therefore, with some confidence assign the introduction of the phylacteries to the period of the domination of the Pharisees in the reign of John Hyrcanus (b.c. 135-105).

Even in the first century of our era it is very doubtful if the practice extended beyond the Pharisees and their adherents, who showed their zeal for religion by the size of the cases and the breadth of the straps by which they were fastened. Certainly the mass of the Jewish people at this date, ‘who knew not the law’ (John 7:49). paid no heed to such literalism ; neither, we may be sure, did Jesus or His disciples.

In popular estimation, as is shown by the very name ‘phylacteries’ (§1), and by references in Targum and Talmud, the phylacteries were regarded as powerful amulets. In the Middle Ages they seem to have fallen from the absurdly exaggerated esteem in which they were held in Talmudic times. This was no doubt due to the fact that some of the most influential Jewish exegetes still frankly maintained the figurative interpretation of the cardinal passages of the Pentateuch. In more modern times, however, the practice of ‘laying the tephillin’ has revived, and is now universal in orthodox Jewish circles. A. R. S. Kennedy.

Phttlaroh

Phttlaroh (2 Maccabees 8:32). A military title for either a cavalry officer or a commander of auxiliary forces.

Physician

See Medicine, p. 597’‘.

Pi-beseth

Ezekiel 30:17: Bubastis, one of the greatest cities in Lower Egypt; Egyp. Pubasti, ‘House of Ubasti^; it was especially the residence of the 22nd Dyn., which was founded by Shishak. The goddess Ubasti was usually figured with a lion’s head, but she was of a mild character, and her sacred animal in late times was the cat. The ruins of the city are now called Tell Basta, lying near Zagazig, in the E. of the Delta. Naville, yielding monuments of every period from the 4th Dynasty to the 30th. F. Ll. Griffith.

Piece

Piece is used in AV for (1) a measure equal to a firkin (1 Esdras 8:20 ‘an hundred pieces of wine’); (2) an instrument of war (1 Maccabees 6:51 ‘pieces to cast darts, and slings’).

Pigeon

See Dove.

Pi-hahiroth

Pi-hahiroth (Exodus 14:2, 9, Numbers 33:7, 8). Mentioned in connexion with the camping of the Israelites. It was ‘between Migdol and the sea, before Baal-zephon’ (Exodus 14:9). This definition does not enable us to fix its site, for these other places are themselves unknown. In Numbers 33:8 the name is simply Hahiroth.

Pilate

Pontius Pilatus, a Roman of no known family, succeeded Valerius Gratus as procurator of Judsea in a.d. 26. He possibly owed his appointment to Sejanus, and his administration, as described from the Jewish standpoint, shows either that he shared the anti-Jewish feelings of Sejanus or that he failed to understand the temper of the people with whom he had to deal. His first offence was not allowing the soldiers to remove the images from their standards on entering Jerusalem. These images were worshipped by the soldiers, and were therefore symbols of idolatry. A deputation of Jews waited on Pilate for five days, and refused to desist though threatened with instant death. He was compelled to give way, but subsequently set up in the palace of Herod tablets dedicated to the Emperor, which was taken as an attempt to introduce the Caesar-worship already fiourishing In the rest of the Empire. Only an order from Tiberius compelled him to yield a second time. Hebrews 8, further offence by a more justifiable action. The need of water in the city was much felt at the time of festivals, and Pilate proceeded to construct a new aqueduct at the expense of the Temple treasure. The Sanhedrin might have ordered such a work, but as Pilate’s act it caused a riot which was not quelled without bloodshed. To these Incidents we must add the massacre of some Galilseans at the very altar of sacrifice, referred to in Luke 13:1, but not otherwise explained. The end of Pilate’s rule was brought about by a disturbance in Samaria. Tradition said that the vessels of the Tabernacle had been buried on Mt. Gerizim, and a band of armed men escorted thither an impostor who promised to reveal them. Pilate sent troops to the spot, who, after a massacre, dispersed the multitude. Complaint was made to Vitellius, the legatus of Syria, who seems at this time to have had authority over the governor of Judaea. Pilate was ordered to justify himself at Rome (a.d. 36), but before he arrived there Tiberius had died (March, a.d. 37), and he was not re-appointed (Joseph, Ant. xviii. iii. 1-iv. 2). Eusebius states that he committed suicide. The ‘Acts of Pilate’ and his letters to the Emperor are late forgeries.

Pilate would therefore be to us only one of a series of unsuccessful procurators, but for the fact that his years of office covered the period of Christ’s ministry. From the accounts of our Lord’s trial we learn more of him than from any other source.

Except at the times of the great feasts the governors usually stayed at Caesarea; but Pilate was probably present with reinforcements to repress any disorder during the Passover, and had his headquarters in the fortress known as the Tower of Antonia, which adjoined the Temple on the N. side. The prsetorium formed part of this fortress (but see Pr^torium), and on this occasion, while the prisoner was led inside, the accusers remained below the steps which led into the hall, lest they should be rendered unclean for the feast by entering a building defiled by leaven. Pilate examined Jesus inside the hall, and came outside each time he wished to speak to the accusers. Jesus had been brought to him to be condemned to death, this penalty being out Pilate to pass sentence on their simple statement that he was ‘a malefactor’ (John 18:28–32). Pilate was too Roman for this — penalties in their power they might inflict, but it he was to add his authority he required a reason. Therefore (avoiding the charge of blasphemy) they accused Jesus of ‘forbidding tribute’ and calling himself ‘Christ, a king’ (Luke 23:2). Pilate returned inside, and by questions Ussured himself that the prisoner claimed only what he would have called a ‘philosophical kingship’ — an idea familiar to him, if only from the Stoics. Hardly believing that truth was attainable (as he showed by the scornful answer, ‘What is truth?’), he was yet prepared, like many Romans of his day, to patronize one who thought he had attained to it (John 18:33–38). From this time onwards we must regard the trial as a series of attempts on Pilate’s part to release Jesus without too great offence to the Jews. (1) Hearing that He came from Galilee, he sends Him to Herod Antipas, who was at Jerusalem for the feast. If Herod ‘claimed jurisdiction’ over the prisoner he might have released Him, but he had no more power to condemn a man to death in Jerusalem than the Jews had. The courtesy reconciled Herod and Pilate, their former enmity being due to the fact that Herod sent private reports to Rome and was regarded as the Emperor’s spy. But when Herod failed to get either reply or miracle from Jesus, he sent Him back to Pilate (Luke 23:6–12). (2) It was a custom (whether Jewish or Roman in origin) to release a prisoner in honour of the Passover. Pilate proposed to release Jesus, but, persuaded by the priests, the multitude clamoured for Barabbas (Matthew 27:15–21. Mark 15:6–11. Luke 23:13–19, John 18:39, 40). (3) After solemnly washing his hands, as if absolving himself of responsibility for condemning an innocent man (Matthew 27:24, 25). Pilate hoped to satisfy the rancour of the accusers by scourging the prisoner. ‘I will chastise him and release him’ (Luke 23:16, 22). But when Jesus came forth from the scourging, the Jews for the first time brought forward the cry that He ‘made himself the Son of God’ (John 19:7). To such as Pilate, Greek mythology would make it not incredible that ‘the son of a god’ should be on earth, and in the decadence of their own religion the Romans were lending a ready ear to the mysterious religions of the East. Moreover, Pilate’s superstitious fear had already been aroused by the report of his wife’s dream (Matthew 27:19). Again, therefore, he questioned Jesus. But at length the Jews prevailed with the cry, ‘If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar’s friend’ (John 19:12). The threat that the province would accuse him at Rome for treason overcame Pilate’s scruples. An accusation for ‘treason’ might mean death under Tiberius. Pilate gave way, caused his throne or tribunal to be brought on to the tessellated space in front of the praetorium (called ‘Gabbatha’ in Aramaic), and there pronounced final judgment. But in the taunting words, ‘Behold your kingl’ and ‘Shall I crucify your king?’ as well as in the inscription on the cross, which he refused to alter in spite of protest, he wreaked upon the Jews such revenge as lay in his power.

In this unjust complaisance we have an illustration of one danger in the strict supervision which Augustus and Tiberius maintained over provincial government. In the main it was a great benefit, but it enabled the provincials to intimidate a weak governor. The weak points in Pilate’s character stand out strongly. He seems to have been a sceptic in principle, but not free from superstition, in this resembling perhaps most of the upper class among the Romans in his day. He had probably not taken the trouble to understand the fierce passions of the people whom he was sent to govern, and when worsted by them in early encounters, the scorn which Romans felt for Jews became in him something like hatred, and a strong desire to be avenged on their leaders at all costs save one, namely, disgrace at Rome. For before all things he seems to have considered his own position.

But it is very unliltely that Tiberius, who was jealous for good provincial government, would have allowed Pilate to remain procurator for ten years if his administration had been as bad as our knowledge of him would imply. It is easy to under-estimate the difSculties of his post. The province of Judaea included not only JudEEa proper, but Samaria and Idumaea; and in addition to its normal population there was at the time of great feasts, particularly the Passover, an influx of Jews from other provinces, which made the temporary population of Jerusalem sometimes between two and three millions. And this population was animated, as no other race was, by a religious fervour capable of passing on occasion into political excesses difficult to cope with, since in the eyes of a large minority submission to foreign rule was religious apostasy. But the province ranked only as a ‘minor Imperial province’ ; its governor was a procurator, not a legatus or proefectus, and to control the difficult elements in the population he had only 3000 troops, quartered usually at Csesarea, besides small detachments used to garrison Jerusalem and Sebaste. The governor usually went up to Jerusalem for the Passover time, but he must have felt that in face of a sudden national movement he would be powerless; and it is no small testimony to Roman powers of administration that for 60 years the series of procurators in Judaa managed to postpone more serious conflicts. The fault would seem to rest with the central authority, which did not realize that in administering the small province of Judsea it had to deal not with the province alone, but with all the millions of Jews scattered throughout the Empire, profoundly earnest in religious convictions, regarding Judsea as the holy centre of all they held dearest, and maintaining direct communication with the Sanhedrin, to which the Romans themselves had allowed a certain authority over all Jews throughout the Empire. Hence, mistaking the nature of the work, they sent as procurators second-rate men, who were often (like Pilate) nominees of Imperial favourites, and who were probably looking forward to their promotion from the moment that they landed in Caesarea. Had Judaea been definitely attached to the province of Syria, it would at any rate have been governed by men with a wider outlook.

A. E. HiLLARD.

Pildash

One of the sons of Nahor (Genesis 22:22). PILHA. — A signatory to the covenant (Nehemiah 10:24).

Pillar

1. With two or three unimportant exceptions,’ pillar’ in OT is the rendering of two very distinct Heb. terms, ‘ammud and maizebah. The former denotes in most cases — for a conspicuous exception see Jachin and Boaz — a pillar or column supporting the roof or other part of a building (Judges 16:25 f.: 1 Kings 7:2 f.). also the pillars from which the hangings of the Tabernacle were suspended (Exodus 26:32 and oft.). From this sense the transition is easy to a column of smoke (Judges 20:40). and to the ‘pillar of cloud’ and the ‘pillar of fire’ of the Exodus and the Wanderings (Exodus 13:21 etc.). The further transition to the figurative use of the term ‘pillar,’ which alone prevails in NT (Galatians 2:9. 1 Timothy 3:15, Revelation 3:12 10:1). may be seen in Job 9:6 26:11 — passages reflecting an antique cosmogony in which the pillars of earth and heaven were actual supports.

2. It is with the second of the two terms above cited, the mazzebah, that this article has mainly to deal. Derived from a root common to the Semitic family, mazzibah denotes something ‘set up’ on end, in particular an upright stone, whether it be a megalithic monument, such as the stones known to contemporary archaeology as menhirs or ‘standing stones,’ or a less imposing funerary stele. Three varieties of mazzibahs may be distinguished in OT.

(a) For reasons that will appear at a later stage, our survey may start from the stone erected over a grave or elsewhere as a memorial of the dead. The mazzebah set up by Jacob upon the grave of Rachel (Genesis 35:20) was of this kind. This was the prevailing application of the term among the Phoenicians (see Cooke, Text-book of N. Sem. Inscrips. 60). To this category may also be reckoned the memorial pillar which Absalom erected for himself in his own lifetime (2 Samuel 18:18).

(6) In a second group may be placed the stones set up to commemorate, or, in Biblical phrase, ‘for a witness’ of, some important incident (Genesis 31:44 f.: Joshua 24:27) — in particular the appearance or manifestation of a Divine being (a theophany) at a given spot. Such, in the present form of the story — for the probable original form, see § 4 below — was the stone which Jacob set up and anointed at Bethel (Genesis 28:18, 22; of. 31:13 35:14). Other examples of mazzibahs, interpreted by the Heb. historians as commemorative monuments, are the stone Ebenezer of 1 Samuel 7:12. and the cromlech (gilgal) set up by Joshua after the crossing of the Jordan ‘for a memorial unto the children of Israel’ (Joshua 4:7).

(c) The third and most important class of mazzebahs comprises the pillar-stones which stood beside the altar at every Canaanite sanctuary (see High Place). For this class AV has the misleading term ‘image’ (except Deuteronomy 12:3). for which RV has substituted ‘pillar,’ with ‘obelisk’ in the margin. That the local sanctuaries, in most cases taken over from the Canaanites, at which the Hebrews worshipped J" were provided with such pillar-stones, is evident both from the references in Hosea 3:4 10:1 f.: and from the repeated condemnation of them in the successive law codes (Ex 34 23. Deuteronomy 7:5 12:3 etc.), and by the Deuteronomic historians (1 Kings 14:23, 2 Kings 18:4 23:14 [for Judah) 17:10 [Israel]).

A special variety of pillar associated with idolatrous worship emerges in the later writings, the chammanlm or sun-pillars (AV ‘images,’ RV ‘sun -images’). They were probably connected with sun-worship (Lagrange, Etudes suT les relig. semit.^ 314 f.).

3. The OT evidence for the mazzebahs as an indispensable part of the furnishing of a Canaanite high place has been confirmed in a remarkable degree by the excavations of recent years, in the course of which pillar-stones of diverse shapes and sizes have been brought to light. Even to summarize "the archaeological evidence would extend this article beyond due limits (see Vincent, Canaan d’apr^s I’exploration rScente [1907], 102-H5; Benzinger, Heb. Arch.^ [1907], 321 ff.; Kittel, Studien zur heb. Arch. [1908], 126 ff.). It must suffice to refer briefly to the magnificent series of mazzSbShs which formed part of the high place at Gezer (for full details see PEFSt, 1903, 23 ff., and Macalister, Bible Sidelights, etc., 54 ff.). Originally ten in number, eight of them are still standing in situ. ‘They are unhewn blocks, simply set on end and supported at the base by smaller stones . . . and range in height from 10 ft. 6 in. to 5 ft. 5 in.’ The smaller dimensions are those of the second stone of the series, which is supposed to have been the original beth-d (see next §) of the high place. The fact that this stone, alone of the group, has its top smooth and polished, as if by long-continued anointing on the part of the worshippers, is greatly in favour of this view. Several of the larger stones are provided with cavities, either at the top or in one side. This provision, which is also characteristic of the mazzebahs found at Taanach and Megiddo, must evidently, as will presently appear, have some relation to the ritual of the worship of these ancient sanctuaries.

4. It now remains to deal with a question which may be thus formulated. What significance did the Canaanites, and the Hebrews alter them, attach to these mazzibahs, and what place did they hold in the ancient cult? This question can hardly be approached without a reference to the still unsolved problem of the religious signiflcance of ‘standing stones’ all the world over. This world-wide phenomenon ‘must rest on some cause which was operative in all primitive religions’ (W. R. Smith, RS’ 209). It will probably be found, on consideration of all the conditions to be satisfied, that the desire to appease the spirit of the dead lies at the beginning, while the conception of the pillar-stone as a representation of the deity, beside the altar dedicated to his worship, comes at the end of a long process of evolution. On this view, a stone, over or beside the grave of the dead, afforded, to the primitive mind, a convenient abode for the departed spirit, when it chose to return to receive the homage and offerings of the living. The blood of the sacrifice was poured over the stone, and thus brought into contact with the indwelling spirit (cf. the cup-marks on the cap-stones of the dolmens on the east of the Jordan and elsewhere). With this desire to do honour to the dead, the idea of keeping alive his memory by a conspicuous or upright stone was sooner or later associated. When and where higher Ideas of the spirit world prevailed, the mazzibSh became a memorial stone and nothing more, as in group (o) above.

The belief that a stone might become the abode of any numen marked a distinct step in advance. In Gn 2S it is admitted that we have a later adaptation of a Ganaanite temple myth, which explained the origin of the sanctuary at Bethel, and especially the sanctity attaching to the original beth-el, i.e., the abode of an el or numen (.v.^), round which the sanctuary grew up. In the original form of the story the anointing of the stone was an offering to the indwelling numen. The second of the Gezer mazzebdhs shows an exact counterpart to this. The cavities in the other recently discovered mMzzibahs, above mentioned, were no doubt originally intended to receive similar offerings of blood, wine, or oil (cf. Gu 35).

When this fetish worship had been outgrown, the mazzebah became merely a symbol or representation of the deity, who had his home elsewhere. The conical pillar standing in the court of the temple of Astarte, as represented on the coins of Byblus, is an illustration of this higher conception. We may be sure that the worshippers of J" regarded the Ganaanite mazzebshs in this light from the first. But the danger of contamination was great (see High Place, § 6), and the condemnation of the mazzibahs is a recurring feature of all the law codes (reff. above).

6. Another unsolved problem may be mentioned In conclusion. What is the relation of the mazzSbSk to the altar? Shall we say, with the distinguished author of the Religion of the Semites’ (p. 204), that ‘the altar is a differentiated form of the primitive rude stone pillar, the nosb or massebah’; or, with the latest investigator, that ‘the massebah is nothing else than the artificial sulDstitute for the sacrificial stone’ (Kittel, op. cit. 1 29, 134) ? If the views expressed in the previous section are correct, the second alternative offers the more probable solution. The pillar will then be a differentiated form of the most ancient altar (Altar, §§ 1. 2), the cause of the differentiation, as we have seen, being the desire to commemorate, as well as to appease, the dead. A. R. S. Kennedy.

Pillar, Plain of the

In Judges 9:6 we read that the men of Shechem made Abimelech king ‘by the plain (AV; RV’ oak,’ RVm ‘terebinth’) of the pillar.’ The correct translation is undoubtedly ‘the terebinth of the pillar,’ the meaning being the sanctuary of Shechem. The ‘pillar’ refers to the sacred stone, originally a fetish, which was often found in holy places along with the sacred tree (see preced. article).

W. F. BOTD.

Pillow

The ‘pillow’ of Mark 4:38 (AV) is the cushion (so RV) used by rowers. See also Bolster and House, 8.

Piltai

A priestly house (Nehemiah 12:17).

Pine Tree

1. •lls-shemen, Nehemiah 8:15. see Oil Tree. 2. tUhdr, Isaiah 41:19 [RVm ‘plane’] 60:13. From similarity to the Syr. daddar (‘elm’), the tidhar has been supposed to be the elm, but quite as probably may have been a kind of pine; of these the two common varieties known in Syria are the Aleppo or maritime iPinus halepensis), and the stone (P. pinea) with its umbrella-like top. E. W. G. Masterman.

Pinnacle

This word has been adopted by our EV from the Vulgate of Matthew 4:5 ipinnaculum) to indicate the spot within the Temple enclosure from which the devil tempted our Lord to cast Himself down. The precise nature and location of ‘the pinnacle of the temple’ (Mt. i.c, Luke 4:9) [both RV]), however, are nowhere indicated. The context and the use of the word usually employed for the whole complex of buildings as opposed to that which denotes the Temple proper (see plan in art. Temple, § 12) rather favour the view that the ‘pinnacle’ is to be sought in the neighbourhood of the S.E. corner, where the royal ‘porch’ met that of Solomon. Here, as Josephus informs us — and the excavations corroborate his testimony — a spectator looking down into the valley of the Kidron ‘would turn giddy, while his sight could not reach down so such an abyss’ (Ant. XV. xi. 6). Many authorities, on the contrary, favour some part of the roof of the Temple building itself.

A. R. S. Kennedy.

Pinon

An Edomite ‘duke’ (Genesis 36:41, 1 Chronicles 1:52), prob. same name as Punon of Numbers 33:42 f.:

Pipe

See Music, etc., § 4 (2) (o).

Piram

The king of Jarmuth, defeated by Joshua at Beth-horon and afterwards put to death (Joshua 10:3 ff.).

Pirathon, Pirathonite

Pirathon ‘in the land of Ephraim’ was the home of Abdon ‘the Pirathonite’ (Judges 12:13, 15), and of Benaiah, one of David’s heroes (2 Samuel 23:30 etc.). It can hardly have been identical with Parathon (wh. see), but it is probably represented by either Fer’on or Fer’ata. W. Ewino.

Pisgah

A mountain in the region of Moab, with a commanding view over both the desert (Numbers 21:20) and Western Palestine. Hither the Israelites journeyed from Bamoth, and there took place the extraordinary episode of Balaam, who on the top of Pisgah built seven altars (Numbers 23:14). Its principal distinction, however, is its being the scene of Moses’ vision of the Promised Land (Deuteronomy 3:27 34:1) and of his death. It fell into the territory of Reuben (Joshua 13:20 [AV Ashdoth-pisgah, as in 12:3 and Deuteronomy 3:17; RV in all three ‘slopes (mg.’ springs ‘) or Pisgah ‘]) .

An alternative name for Pisgah is Nebo (wh. see), referred to in Deuteronomy 32:49 as the scene of the death of Moses. The latter name is preserved by Jebel Neba, a range whose summit reaches a height of 2643 feet and commands a view of a large part of Western Palestine. It is 5 miles S.W. of Heshbon, and runs westward from the Moabite plateau. R. A. S. Macalister.

Pishon

See Eden [Garden of].

Pisidia

The name applied to a district about 120 miles long and 50 miles broad, immediately N. of the plains of Pamphylia. It is entirely occupied by the numerous ranges into which the Taurus here breaks, with the deep intersecting valleys. The name was not applied to a definite political division, and nothing is known of the race inhabiting Pisidia. Until the time of Augustus they were wild mountaineers and brigands. Augustus began their reduction about B.C. 25 by establishing a chain of Roman posts which included on the N. side Antioch and Lystra, reconstituted as colonies. The name ‘Pisidian Antioch’ (Acts 13:14) would seem to record this fact, since Antioch was never included in Pisidia. The civilization of the district seems to haye been eifected by about a.d. 74. Until then it was dealt with as part of the province of Galatia, but at that date Vespasian attached a considerable portion of it to Pamphylia, in which province no great military force was maintained,

Paul and Barnabas traversed the district twice in the first missionary journey (Acts 13:13 14:24). It was probably still a dangerous locality, and it is plausibly conjectured that St. Paul refers to it when he speaks of ‘perils of robbers’ (2 Corinthians 11:26). The route which they followed is uncertain, but the most likely theory la that of Prof. Ramsay (see Church in the Roman Empire, ch. ii. 2), that they went through Adada, the ruins of which bear the name Kara Bavlo (i.e. Paulo). The dedication of the church to St. Paul may have been due to some surviving tradition of his passing by that way, but we are not informed that he preached at all in Pisidia. There is no evidence that Christianity made any progress in Pisidia before the time of Constantine. From the time of Diocletian we find the name Pisidia applied differently, namely, to a Roman province including PhrygiaGalatica, Lycaonia, andthe part of Phrygia round Apamea. A. E. Hillakd.

Pispah

An Asherite (1 Chronicles 7:38).