Sacrifice and Offering – Salt Sea

Sacrifice and Offering

1 .Tbbminoloqy op SACRIFICE. — (a) General. Since every sacrifice was an offering, but all offerings were not sacrifices, this preliminary study of the usage of these two important terms in our EV may start from the more comprehensive’ offering.’ It is true that in the majority of the occurrences of ‘offering,’ both in AV and in RV, it is simply a synonym of ‘sacrifice’ (cf . German Opfer). This is the case more particularly in the extensive nomenclature of the various sacrifices, as ‘burnt offering,’ which also appears in AV as ‘burnt sacrifice,’ ‘meal (AV meat) offering,’ etc. (In AV and RV the names of the sacrifices are printed separately, in Amer. RV they are more correctly joined by a hyphen, burnt-offering, etc.) As will presently appear (§2), the compound expression in such cases represents but a single word in the original, which is the technical term for the particular sacrifice.

In the remaining occurrences, however, ‘offering,’ or its synonym ‘oblation,’ is used in a more extended application to denote a gift offered to God, as opposed to a secular gift, in the form of a present, bribe, or the like, to a fellow-creature. Such ‘holy gifts’ (Exodus 28:38) or offerings may be divided into three classes, namely, (1) altar-offerings, comprising all such offerings as were brought into contact with the altar (cf. Matthew 23:19), mostly for the purpose of being consumed thereon; (2) the stated sacred dues, such as tithes, first-fruits, etc.; and (3) special votive offerings, e.g. those specified in Numbers 7. In this comprehensive sense of the term, ‘offering,’ or — as almost uniformly in RV — ‘oblation,’ corresponds to the Heb. gorbdn, a word peculiar to Ezekiel and the priestly legislation. It is the corban of Mark 7:11. ‘that is to say. Given to God’ (RV; AV ‘a gift’), and means ‘something brought near,’ i.e. to the altar, or at least presented at the sanctuary, in other words, a present to God. The term, as has been said, appears late in the history of OT sacrifice (Ezekiel 20:28 40:43 and the various strata of P passim), the nearest corresponding term in the older literature being mincMh, for which see § 2.

The classification of OT offerings above suggested serves, further, to’ bring into relief the relation of ‘sacrifice’ to ‘offering.’ The former may be defined as an offering which is consumed, in whole or in pari, upon the altar, or, more briefly, as an altar-offering. It is in this more restricted sense of altar-offering that ‘sacrifice’ and ‘offering’ are employed synonymously in our English nomenclature of sacrifice.

But there is still another use of these terms in which they are not synonymous but contrasted terms. In the sacrificial system of OT, altar-offerings — ‘sacrifices,’ in the sense above defined — are of two kinds, animal offerings and cereal offerings, using the latter term a fmliori for all non-bloody altar-offerings, including not merely cereal oblations in the strict sense (flour, cakes, etc.), but also offerings of wine, oil, and the indispensable salt. Now the characteristic and significant Heb. designation of an animal, or, as it is often termed, a bloody, offering is gebach, lit. ‘slaughter,’ from the verb zabach, originally to slaughter generally, then specially to immolate the sacrificial victim, to sacrifice — hence also the word for ‘altar,’ mizbdach, lit. the place of slaughter (for sacrifice). The complement of zebach in this sense of animal sacrifice is mincMh, in the later specialized sense of cereal offering (see, further, for both terms, § 2), so that ‘sacrifice and offering’ came to denote the whole category of altar offerings (Psalms 40:6, 1 Samuel 2:29, Amos 5:25 — also Isaiah 19:21 ‘sacrifice and oblation’). In this sense, also, they are to be understood in the title of this article. The results now reached may be thus summed up: ‘sacrifice’ is used as a convenient term for both kinds of OT altar-offerings, but in the EV, and in strict usage, it corresponds to the Heb. zebach, which is always used of animal sacrifice, while ‘offering’ is used in three different senses — for all sacred gifts (gor&fln), for such gifts only as ‘came up’ upon the altar, and, finally, in the special sense of cereal offering.

2, Terminology op sacrifice. — (6) Special. To the foregoing study of the more general terms may now be added a brief review of the more specific renderings of the names of the principal altar-offerings, reserving for later sections the examination of their characteristic features. Following the order of the manual of sacrifice, Lv 1-5, we have (1) the burnt offering, — so RV uniformly, AV also ‘burnt sacrifice’ — Heb. ‘Siah, lit.’ that which goes up’ (on the altar). The name is supposed to point to the feature by which the ‘Slah was distinguished from all other sacrifices, viz., the burning of the whole victim as a holocaust upon the altar. This characteristic is more explicitly brought out by the rare designation (2) MIU. the’ whole burnt oSering’ of Deuteronomy 33:10 RV (AV ‘whole burnt sacrifice’) and Psalms 51:19. ‘Whole offering’ would be a more exact equivalent of (1) and (2).

(3) Meal offering (RV) and meat offering (AV) are the equivalents of minchah in its restricted sense of cereal or vegetable offering, as already explained. The Heb. word ‘does not express the neutral idea of a gift, but denotes a present made to secure or retain goodwill’(Driver, art.’ Offering.’ in Hastings’ DB iii. 587), such as Jacob’s ‘present’ to Esau (Genesis 32:13, 18), and the ‘presents’ which subjects were expected to offer to their sovereigns (1 Samuel 10:27). From the latter usage there is but a step to the further sense of an ‘offering’ to the Divine sovereign. In the older literature, minchSh, as a present or offering to J", includes both animal and cereal offerings, as in the case of the ‘offering’ brought by Abel and Cain respectively (Genesis 4:3 ff.) In the later Priests’ Code, however, minchah is restricted to the cereal offering. For this the ‘meal offering’ of RV is better than the older rendering, ‘meat’ being now obsolete in the sense intended, but is still not sufficiently comprehensive; hence cereal oSering or cereal oblation is the rendering now generally preferred. With the cereal offering may be taJcen (4) the drink oSering, first met with in Genesis 35:14.

(5) Peace offering (RVm thank offering). — The meaning of the special name of this sacrifice (.shelem Amos 5:22, elsewhere always plural sfMSmlm) is still uncertain, — a fact reflected in the alternatives of RV. Most scholars, following the LXX, connect the word with shBXdm, ‘peace,’ as reflecting the harmonious relations of worshipper and worshipped brought about by the sacrifice. Others, with greater probability, would derive the name from another meaning of the same root— ‘to recompense, repay, pay one’s vows’ (see Proverbs 7:14). On this view, recompense offering is perhaps as good a rendering as any, and leaves (6) thank oSering (2 Chronicles 29, tsdhah, lit. ‘thanksgiving,’ hence the expression ‘a sacrifice of thanksgiving,’ Amos 4:5, Psalms 50:14, 23 RV) for an important variety of the recompense offering (cf. Leviticus 7:13 RV ‘the saoriflce of his peace offerings for thanksgiving’). Other two varieties, named together Leviticus 7:16, Numbers 15:3 etc., are (7) the votive offering (EV ‘vow’), defined in the latter passage as ‘a sacrifice to accomplish a vow," and (8) the freewill oSering (RV), which explains itself.

The probable meaning of the difficult terms rendered(9) sin offering, and (10) trespass (AV) or guilt (RV) offering will be more profitably discussed when the precise nature and object of these offerings are under consideration (§ 14 f.). All the various offerings (1) to (10) are explicitly or implicitly included in a favourite term of the Priestly legislation, namely (11) ‘ishsheh, fire offering, in EV’ the offering (or sacrifice) made by fire.’ The fire offering is also mentioned in Deuteronomy 18:1 and 1 Samuel 2:28 (a Deuteronomic passage).

Two other significant terms may be taken together, namely, the heave offering and the wave oSering. The former is the rendering, in this connexion, of (12) {erUmah, which etymologically signifies not something ‘heaved up’ (so Exodus 29:27). but rather ‘what is lifted ofl a larger mass, or separated from it for sacred purposes.’ The Heb. word is used in a variety of applications — gifts of agricultural produce, of the spoils of war, etc., and in these cases is rendered ‘offering’ or ‘oblation’ (see Driver, DB iii. 588, and Com. on Devi. 142, who considers ‘that " contribution" is perhaps the English word which . . . best suggests the ideas expressed by the Heb. CerumOk’). In connexion with sacrifice, however, it denotes certain portions ‘taken or lifted off’ from the rest and assigned to the priests as their due, in particular the ‘heave thigh’ (Leviticus 7:34 RV), or ‘the thigh of the heave offering’ (Exodus 29:27 f.). ‘Heave offering’ accordingly in the sacrificial terminology is the equivalent of ‘priest’s portion’ (cf. Leviticus 6:17, where, however, a different word is used).

(13) With the terumah is closely associated the dnHphah or wave oSering. The Heb. word denotes a movement to and fro, swinging, ‘waving,’ the priest lifting his share of the victim and moving it to and fro in the direction of the altar, thus symbolizing the presentation of the part of J", and J""s return of it to the priest. It is applied specially to the breast of the sacrificial victim, hence termed ‘the breast of the wave offering’ (Exodus 29). or more tersely ‘the wave breast’ (Leviticus 7:34 10). Further, like terumah, tenUphah is also used in the more general sense of ‘offering’ (Exodus 35:22; cf. Numbers 8 of the Levites, where the change from ‘offering’ (AV) to ‘wave offering’ (RV) is not an Improvement).

(14) The last entry in this vocabulary of OT sacrifice is reserved for the obscure term ‘azkdroh, memorial oSering, applied especially to the handful ofHhe cereal offering burnt by the priest upon the altar (Leviticus 2:2, 9, 16 etc., EV’ memorial’). According to the usual, but uncertain, derivation of the term izllkar ‘remember’), the ‘azkOrah is understood as an offering designed to bring the offerer to J"‘s remembrance.

3. Sacrifice and offering in the pre-exilic PERIOD. — The history of OT sacrifice, like the history of the religion of Israel of which it is the most characteristic expression, falls into two main divisions, the first embracing the period from Moses to the end of the monarchy (b.c. 586), the second the period from the Babylonian exile to the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70. For the latter period we have the advantage of the more or less systematic presentation of the subject in the various strata of the complex legislation of P (esp. Lv 1-7) ; for the former we must have recourse to the numerous references to sacrifice in the non-Priestly sources of the Pentateuch, in the early narratives of the historical books, and in the writings of the pre-exilic prophets.

Now, according to J, sacrifice as an institution is as old as the human race itself (Genesis 4:2 ff.). In this significant narrative, sacrifice appears as the spontaneous expression of man’s need of God, who ‘made of one every nation of men . . . that they should seek God, if haply they might feel after him and find him’ (Acts 17:26 f. RV). Our study of the terminology of sacrifice has shown that the dominant conception of sacrifice in the OT from first to last is that of a gift, present, or offering. The object of the gift, reduced to its simplest terms, may be said to be threefold — to secure and retain the favour of J", to remove His displeasure incurred, and to express gratitude for benefits received. In this, Hebrew sacrifice differed from sacrifice elsewhere, even in the lowest religions, only in respect of the deity to whom it was offered.

The sacrificial worship of the earlier differs from that of the later period mainly in the greater freedom as regards the occasion and in particular the place of sacrifice, in the greater simplicity of the ritual, and in the joyousness of the cult as compared with the more sombre atmosphere of the post-exilic worship, due to a deepened sense of sin and the accompanying conviction of the need of expiation.

As regards, first of all, the place of sacrifice, every village appears to have had its sanctuary or ‘high place’ with its altar and other appurtenances of the cult, on which the recent excavations have thrown so much new and unexpected light (see High Place). Not that sacrifice could be offered at any spot the worshipper might choose; it must be one hallowed by the tradition of a theophany: ‘in every place where I record my name I will come unto thee and I will bless thee’ (Exodus 20:24 RV). With the abolition of the local sanctuaries by Josiah in B.C. 622-21, the Temple at Jerusalem became, and henceforth remained, the only legitimate place of sacrifice, as required by the legislation of Deuteronomy (12:2 ff.).

The occasions of sacrifice were manifold, and in the days of the local sanctuaries, which practically means the whole of the period under consideration, these occasions were naturally taken advantage of to an extent impossible when sacrifice was confined to the Temple of Jerusalem. Only a few of such occasions, whether stated or special, can be noted here. Of the regular or stated occasions may be named the daily sacrifices of the Temple — a burnt offering in the morning followed by a cereal offering in the afternoon (2 Kings 16:15. cf. 1 Kings 18:29, 36. which, however, may refer to one or more of the large sanctuaries of the Northern Kingdom. e.g. Bethel or Samaria), the ‘yearly sacrifice’ of the various clans (1 Samuel 20:6). those at the recurring festivals, such as the new moon and the three agricultural feasts (Exodus 23:14 ff. 34), at which the oldest legislation laid down that ‘none shall appear before me empty’ (23:15 34:20). that is, without an offering in token of gratitude and homage. Still more numerous were the special occasions of sacrifice — the installation of a king (1 Samuel 11:15, the arrival of an honoured guest, family events such as the weaning of a child, a circumcision, a marriage, the dedication of a house (Deuteronomy 20:5) no compact or agreement was completed until sealed by a sacrifice (Genesis 31:54 etc.); at the opening of a campaign the warriors were ‘consecrated’ by a sacrifice (1 Samuel 13:9 ff.; Isaiah 13:3 RV). One of the most fruitful occasions of sacrifice was undoubtedly the discharging of a vow, of which those of Jacob (Genesis 28:20–22), Jephthah (see 6), Hannah (1 Samuel 1:11), and Absalom (2 Samuel 15:7) may be cited as typical specimens, just as in Syria to-day, among fellahin and bedouin alike, similar vows are made to the welys of the local shrines by or on behalf of sick persons, childless women, or to avert or remove plague or other threatened calamity.

4. The varieties and material of sacrifice in THIS period. — Three varieties of sacrifice are met with in the older Hebrew literature, viz. the burnt offering, the ‘peace’ offering, and the cereal or ‘meal’ offering. The two former, appearing sometimes as ‘burnt offerings and sacrifices’ (Exodus 18:12, jer 7:22 etc.), sometimes as ‘burnt offerings and peace offerings’ (Exodus 24:5, 1 Samuel 13:9 etc.), exhaust the category of animal sacrifices, the special ‘sin’ and ‘guilt’ offerings being first definitely named by Ezekiel (see §§ 13-15). The typical animal offering in the pre-exilic period is that now termed • sacrifice ‘(zebach) simply, now’ peace offering ‘(Amos 5:22) to differentiate it more clearly from the burnt offering, now still more explicitly’ sacrifice of peace offerings’ (perhaps rather ‘of recompense,’ shelamim, § 2). Almost all the special offerings and most of the stated ones were of this type. Its distinguishing feature was the sacrificial meal, which followed the sacrifice proper. After the blood had been returned to the Giver of lite (we have no details as to the manipulation of the blood in the earliest period, but see 1 Samuel 14:32–34), and the fat burned upon the altar (1 Samuel 2; cf. Isaiah 1:11). the fiesh of the victim was eaten at the sanctuary by the sacrificer and his family (1 Samuel 1:3–7) or, in the case of a communal sacrifice, by the representatives of the community (9:22–25). The last passage shows that a special ‘guest-chamber’ was provided at the ‘high place’ for this purpose.

The underlying idea of this, by far the commonest, form of sacrifice was that of sharing a common meal with the deity. The worshippers were the ‘guests’ (Zephaniah 1:7) of God at His sanctuary, and as such secure of His favour. To this day among the Arabs ‘the act of eating together is regarded as something particularly solemn and sacred," and, as is well known, creates a solidarity of interest between guest and host, and imposes upon the latter the duty of protecting his guest so long as, in Arab phrase,’ his salt is in his belly’ (see Jaussen, Coutumes des Ardbes [1908], 86-88). This idea of table communion, as it is termed, is accordingly one which may be reckoned a common possession of the Semitic stock. Even to St. Paul the eating of meat that had been sacrificed to heathen deities appeared as an act of ‘communion (AV’ fellowship’) with demons’ (1 Corinthians 10:20 Amer. RV). References to this solemn — one might almost say sacramental — eating of the sacrifice are too frequent to require citation, but we may recall the favourite expression of Deuteronomy, ‘ye shall eat (and drink) before the Lord your God’ (12:7 etc.), often followed by the equally characteristic ‘ye shall rejoice before the Lord your God.’ Here we meet with the dominant note of Hebrew worship in this period, the note of joyousness above referred to — an element which not infrequently led to the excesses deplored by the prophets.

Much less frequent in the older documents is the mention of the burnt offering, more precisely the ‘whole’ offering (see above, § 2). The fact that the whole was consumed upon the altar enhanced its value as a ‘holy gift,’ and accordingly we find it offered when the occasion was one of special solemnity (Genesis 8:20, 1 Kings 3:4 etc.), or was otherwise extraordinary, as e.g. 1 Samuel 6:14. In most cases the burnt offering appears in conjunction with the ordinary ‘sacrifice’ above described (Exodus 18:12, 1 Samuel 6:17, 2 Samuel 6:17. 2 Kings 16:13, 15; cf. Isaiah 1:11, Jeremiah 7:22 17).

Apart from the special offering of the first-fruits, the cereal or meal offering (AV ‘meat offering’ § 2) is rarely mentioned as an independent offering in this period, but is frequently named along with the two more important offerings discussed above, as Judges 13:23, Amos 5:22, Jeremiah 14:12 (with the burnt offering), 1 Samuel 2:29 3:14. Isaiah 19:21 (BV ‘oblation’), and often. ‘When the Hebrew ate fiesh, he ate bread with it and drank wine, and when he offered flesh on the table of his God, it was natural that he should add to it the same concomitants that were necessary to make up a comfortable and generous meal’ (,RS^ 222). The various forms which the meal offering might assume are attested for a later period by Leviticus 2, for which see § 11. One form occurring there is undoubtedly ancient, viz. parched ears of corn (2:14; cf. Food, § 2).

Another very ancient lorm of offering, although not an altar-offering in the strict sense (yet strangely reckoned among the fire offerings, Leviticus 24:9), is that named the presence bread (EV ‘she’wbread’), which perpetuates the primitive idea of an offering as a meal for the deity (1 Samuel 21:4–6, 1 Kings 7:48). The mention in a later passage of ‘the flagons thereof and the bowls thereof to pour out withal’ (Exodus 25:29, gee, further, Shewbhead) shows that, as for an ordinary meal, the ‘holy bread’ was accompanied by a provision of wine, in other words by a drink ofEering. This species of offering occurs as an independent offering only in Genesis 35:14. The skins of wine mentioned in 1 Samuel 1:24 10:3 doubtless served in part for a drink or ‘wine offering’ (Hosea 9:4), in part, like the accompanying flour and loaves, for the sacriflcial meal. More explicit reference to the wine of the drink offering as an accompaniment of animal sacrifice is found in Dt 32 (ct. the early reference, Judges 9:13, to wine ‘which cheereth God’). For the ritual of the later drink ofEering, see § 11. It is significant of the predominant part played by the drink offering in early Babylonian ritual, that the word for libation (.nigu) has there become the usual term for sacrifice (.KAT’ 595).

A brief reference must suffice for oil in early ritual (Genesis 28:18, Judges 9:9. Micah 6:7 for the later ritual, see § 11). A water offering appears only in the isolated cases 1 Samuel 7:6, 2 Samuel 23:16. but emerges as an interesting survival in the rites of the Feast of Tabernacles (wh. see). Honey, although offered among the first-fruits (2 Chronicles 31:5), was excluded, along with milk, from the altar (Leviticus 2:11). on the ground that both were liable to fermentation (see also Leaven).

6. MaTEBIAI and KITUAIi OF SACRIFICE IN THIS

Sadducees

Probably the name ‘Sadducee’ is derived from the name Zadok, a notable priest in the time of David and Solomon (2 Samuel 8:17 15:24. 1 K His descendants long played the leading part among the priests, so that Ezekiel regarded them as the only legitimate priests (Ezekiel 40:46 43:19 44:15 48:11). The name indicates the fact that is most decisive for the right understanding of the Sadducees. About the year 200 B.C., when party lines were beginning to be drawn, the name was chosen to point out the party of the priests. That is not saying that no priest could be a Pharisee or a Scribe. Neither is it saying that all the priests were Sadducees. In- our Lord’s time many of the poor priests were Pharisees. Bijt the higher priestly families and the priests as a body were Sadducees. With them were joined the majority of the aristocratic lay families of Judsea and Jerusalem. This fact gives us the key to their career. It is wrapped up in the history of the high priesthood. For two centuries after the Exile the high priesthood earned the right to the leadership of the Jewish nation. But in our Lord’s time its leadership lay far back in the past. Its moral greatness ha,d been undermined on two sides. On one side it had lost touch with what was deepest in the being of the Jews. For the most part this was due to its aristocratic bias. The Levitical priesthood was a close corporation. No man not born a priest co^Jld become a priest. More and more, as the interests of the nation widened and deepened, the high priesthood failed to keep pace. Its alliance with the aristocratic families made things worse. The high priesthood and the people drifted apart. No great institution can do that and remain great.

From another side also — the political — the high priesthood was undermined. Owing to the mixture of Church and State the high priests were necessarily in politics all the time. Consequently the historical process, which ended by incorporating Palestine in the Roman Empire, sucked out of the high priesthood all the moralizing influences involved in the handling of large affairs. So, undermined on two sides, the high priesthood lost the right to lead. And the party built up around It — the Sadducees — became the party of those who cared more for their own well-being and for the maintenance of things as they were than for the Kingdom of God.

When we turn to the tenets of the Sadducees, it is still the contrast with the Pharisees that puts them in an intelligible light. Pharisaism, with all its faults, was the heart and soul of the nation, the steward of its treasures — the Holy Scriptures — the trustee of its vitalizing hope. The Sadducees stood for the tenaciously conservative tendencies in the nation. They lay under the curse which rests upon all aristocracies, the inability to realize that the best things must grow. They denied the Pharisaic doctrine of the resurrection of the body (Mark 12:18. Matthew 22:23. Luke 20:27, Acts 23:8). The NT is a better guide in this field than Josephus, who affirms (,BJ ii. viii. 14, Ant. xviii. i. 4) that they denied the immortality of the soul. Josephus overstated things in his desire to make the Jewish parties look like the philosophical schools of Greece. The Sadducees did not deny the immortality of the soul. But they lingered in the past, the period when the belief in immortality was vague, shadowy, and had not yet become a working motive for goodness. They did not accept the developed faith in immortality which was part and parcel of the Pharisaic teaching regarding the Kingdom of God. And this meant that their nation had outgrown them. The Sadducees also denied the Pharisaic doctrine regarding angels and ministering spirits (Acts 23:8). Thereby they maintained a certain sobriety. They even emancipated themselves from a considerable amount of superstition bound up vrith Pharisaism. But they paid for it by a wholly disproportionate sacrifice of vital piety.

From this sketch we can see why our Lord had almost no dealings with the Sadducees during His ministry. His interests were with the common people. This brought Him into continual conflict with the Pharisees. It was not until His popularity seemed to threaten the peace of Jerusalem that the high priest, with the Sadducees at his back, was moved to decisive action. We can also see why the Apostolic Church, in her first years, had most to fear from the Sadducees (Acts 4 and 5). See also artt. Phakisees, Sckibes. Henby S. Nash.

Sadduk

Sadduk (1 Esdras 8:2) Ezra 7:2.

Sadoc

1. (2 Es l’)=Zadok, Ezr72. 2. An ancestor of Jesus (Matthew 1:14).

Saffron

Saffron (Song of Songs 4:14). The Heb. karkSm is identical with the Arab, kurkum or za’farSu) (whence is derived the Eng. ‘saffron’), the name of a variety of crocus (.Crocus sativus), of which the yellow styles and stigmas are used for dyeing and for flavouring food. A similar dye, also called saffron, is more commonly derived from the florets of the Carthamus tinctorius (Compositce) cultivated everywhere in Palestine for this purpose. E. W. G. Masteeman.

Sahidio Version

See Greek Versions of OT, 11 (b), and Text of NT, § 27.

Sails

See Ships and Boats, p. SSOi".

Saints

See Holiness, II. 2, and Sanotification.

Salaivoel

An ancestor of Judith (Judith 8:1).

SALAHHS, which must not be confused with the scene of the great battle between Xerxes and the Greeks in B.C. 480, was the first place visited by Paul and Barnabas on the first missionary journey (Acts 13). It existed as early as the 6th cent. B.C. as an important Greek town on the E. coast of Cyprus. In Roman times it remained a flourishing commercial city, and the eastern half of the island was governed from there. There were very many Jews in Cyprus. Christianity was early preached there (Acts 11:19, 20), and among early converts were Mnason (Acts 21:16) and Barnabas (Acts 4).

A. SOUTER.

Salasadai

An ancestor of Judith (Judith 8:1).

Salathiel

1. (1 Esdras 5 6:2) = Shealtiel (wh. see). 2. Another name of Esdras (2 Esdras 3:1).

Salecah

Salecah (Deuteronomy 3:10, Joshua 13:11 12:5, 1 Chronicles 5:11) was the most easterly of the towns claimed by Israel. It was assigned to the tribe of Gad, and is always described as being on the eastern frontier of Bashan. But it is better indicated less theoretically as being in the extreme south-east of the Hauran. On account of its commanding position it has always been of strategic importance; but it was probably never permanently occupied by any of the Israelitish people. It was a Nabataean and Roman stronghold, and a station on the great trade and military road from Gadara and Edrei eastward through the desert to the Persian Gulf. It is now inhabited bv Druses, and bears the name Salkhad.

3. F. McCdkdt.

Salem

Salem (1 Ks 8’)- Shallum, Ezra 7:2; called also Salemas (7). 2 Esdras 1:1.

Sali

Sah iU. — 1 . A place mentioned only in Genesis 14:18 as the kin^om of the mysterious Melchizedek (wh. see). It is natural to identify it with Jerusalem (wh. see), especially since the Tell el-Amarna tablets show that Uruaanm existed as a name for that city even before the Israelite immigration. But the only real links between ‘Salem’ and Jerusalem’ are two in number: (1) the mention of the ‘King’s Vale,’ where, apparently, Melchizedek met Abram, which seems to be the place where Absalom reared his memorial (2 Samuel 18:18) it would presumably be somewhere near Jerusalem, but, pace Josephus, this is not certain. (2) The allusion to Jerusalem by the name Salem in Psalms 76:2. This poetical abbreviation, however, which occurs nowhere else, may, have been suggested by Salem in the ancient record, just as was the name Moriah (wh. see), and the reference to Melchizedek in Psalms 110:4. There is some similarity between the name of Melchizedek and that of the Jebusite king Adonizedek (Joshua 10:1). but upon the whole the identification of Salem with Jerusalem is rather shadowy. Jerome records another tradition, connecting Salem with Sallm (Salumias) in the Jordan Valley, where there is a tell with the tomb of ‘Sheik Selim.’ 2. The Valley of Salem (Judith 4:4). possibly the Jordan Valley, or a part of it. 3. The LXX reads Salem for Shiloh in Jeremiah 41:5. This must be a Salem near Shechem. if this reading is to be followed. There is a place called Sallm, east of Nablus.

R. A. S. Macalister.

Salemas

Salemas (2 Es l<)^ SliaUum, Ezr -n; called also Salem (7) in 1 Esdras 8:1.

SALIM, near to which was iEnon (John 3:23), lay on the west of Jordan (cf. 1:28 3 IV). .lEnon is placed by the Onom£tslicon eight Roman miles south of Scythopolis (Beisfln), ‘near to Salim and Jordan.’ This points to the neighbourhood of the ruin Umm el-‘Amd3,n, with Tell er-Ridhghah on the north, where the tomb of Sheik Selim probably preserves the ancient name. £ntm,’ place of springs,’ we may find in the seven copious fountains near by. In Christ’s time the district belonged probably to Scythopolis, not to Samaria. The difficulties of other suggested identifications can be got over only by doing violence to the text (Cheyne, EBi, S.V.), or to the sense. W. Ewing.

Salimoth

Salimoth (1 Esdras 8) = Shelomith, Ezra 8:10.

Sallai

1. A Benjamite, Nehemiah 11:8. 2. A priestly family, Nehemiah 12:20; called in v. 7 Sallu.

Sallu

1. A Benjamite family (1 Chronicles 9:7, Nehemiah 11:7). 2. See Sallai, 2.

Sallumus

Sallumus (1 Es g2s) = Shallum, Ezra 10:24; called Salum, 1 Esdras 5:28.

Salma

See Salmon.

Salmai

A family of Nethinim, Nehemiah 7; called In Ezra 2:46 Shamlai, in 1 Esdras 5 Subai.

Salmanasar

Salmanasar (2 Esdras 13:40) = Shalmaneser (wh. see).

SALMON, or SALMA.— The father of Boaz (Ru V- 21), and therefore in the direct line of the ancestry of our Lord (Matthew 1:4, 5. Luke 3:32). If the Salma of 1 Chronicles 2:51, 54 is the same person, he was the ‘father’ or founder of Bethlehem, but it is to be noticed that that Salma Is reckoned as one of the sons of Caleb the son of Hur.

Salmone

A promontory at the N.E. end of Crete, now Cape Sidero. St. Paul s ship, after reaching Cnidus with difficulty, was met by a powerful N.W. wind, which forced the captain to alter the course. Off Salmone (Acts 27:7) he decided to work his way westward under the lee of Crete. A. Souteb.

Saloas

Saloas (1 Esdras 9:22) Ezra 10.

Salom

Greek form of Shallum (Baruch 1:7).

Salome

1. The daughter (unnamed in NT) of Herodias. who danced before Herod and received as a reward the head of John the Baptist (Matthew 14:3–11, Mk 6:17–29). 2. One of the women who were present at the crucifixion (Mark 15:40) and who afterwards visited the sepulchre (16:1). By comparing Mark 15:40 and Matthew 27:56 it has been almost certainly concluded that Salome was the wife of Zebedee, who also figures in the incident Matthew 20:20–23. The conjecture that Salome was the sister of Mary the mother of Jesus has no adequate support. w. F. Boyd.

SALT, — Salt is rightly included by ben-Slra among " the chief of all things necessary for the life of man’ (Sirach 39:26 RV). The Hebrews of the Southern Kingdom, at least, had access to inexhaustible stores of salt both in the waters of the Dead Sea, — hence named in OT ‘the Salt Sea’ (Deuteronomy 3:17 etc.) — whence it could easily be obtained by evaporation, and in the deposits of the Jebel Usdum at its south-western extremity. References to saltpits or saltpans, or to both, are found in Zephaniah 2:9. 1 Maccabees 11:35. One hundred pounds of water from the Dead Sea are said to yield 24i lbs. of salt, compared with 6 lbs. obtained from the same quantity of water from the Atlantic.

In addition to its daily use as a condiment in the preparation of food (cf. Job 6:6). and its important place in the sacrificial ritual, salt was employed by the Hebrews in an even greater variety of ways than it is among ourselves. New-born infants, for example, were rubbed with salt (Ezekiel 16:4) — a practice in which a religious, rather than a hygienic, motive may be detected. A grain of salt placed in the hollow of a decayed tooth was considered a cure for the universal evil of toothache (Mishna, Shabbath, vi. 5). In other treatises of the Mishna we find frequent references to the use of salt for salting fish, for pickling olives, vegetables, etc. The salting of meat for preservation is referred to in the ‘Epistle of Jeremy’ (Bar &‘). The modem Jewish custom of laying all meat in salt for the purpose of more thoroughly draining it of the blood was doubtless observed in Bible times. In Palestine, under the Seleucids, salt formed a government monopoly (1 Mac XQZs 11). as it did in Egypt under the Ptolemys.

As regards the presence of salt in the ritual of sacrifice, the words of Mark 9:49 AV, ‘every sacrifice shall be salted with salt,’ although omitted by RV following the best authorities, are nevertheless true to fact. The legisia^- tion of the Priests’ Code, at least, expressly ordains: ‘with all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt’ (Leviticus 2:13) — a passage which expressly specifies that the cereal or vegetable offerings (the ‘meal offerings’ of RV) had to be salted as well as the more important and more evident animal or fiesh sacrifices (cf. Ezekiel 43:24). A special ‘salt chamber’ is mentioned among the chambers adjoining the Priests’ Court in the description of Herod’s Temple given in the Mishna. The sacred incense, also, had to be ‘seasoned with salt’ (Exodus 30:35 RV), as was also the case with the shewbread, according to the better Gr. text of Leviticus 24:7. The original idea in this extended ritual use of salt was doubtless this — that just as salt was an Indispensable accompaniment of man’s daily food, so it could not be absent from the ‘food of God,’ as the sacrifices are termed in Leviticus 21.

In the developed priestly legislation, however, there can be little doubt that the presence of salt had a symbolical significance. From its use as a preservative, reflected in our Lord’s figure, ‘Ye are the salt of the earth’ (Matthew 5:13). and as an antidote to decay, it is natural that salt should become a symbol of permanence, and even of life as opposed to decay and death. ‘Salt,’ it has been said, ‘seems to stand for life in many a form of primitive speech and in the world’s symbolism’ (Trumbull, Covenant of Salt). From this symbolical standpoint we probably reach the true explanation of the striking expression ‘a convenant of salt’ (Numbers 18:19. 2 Chronicles 13:5). which denotes a covenant that is inviolable and valid in perpetuity. The presence of salt, therefore, with every sacrifice may have come to symbolize the irrevocable character of J"‘s covenant with Israel (cf. G. B. Gray’s Com. on Numbers 18:19).

This seems preferable to the usual explanation which connects the expression in question with the well-known code of Arab hospitality, by which a traveller in the desert, and even an enemy, if he has once partaken of an Arab’s hospitality, has a right to his host’s protection; since this ‘ordinance of salt’ as it is termed, is valid only for a limited period (see Jaussen, Coutumes dea Arabes [1908], 87 f.). On the other hand, the obligations which the partaking of one’s hospitality imposes on a guest are emphasized in the words of Ezra 4:14 ‘because we eat the salt of the palace’ (RV).

In marked contrast to the above-mentioned employment of salt as a symbol of life, stands its parallel occurrence as a symbol of barrenness, desolation, or death (Deuteronomy 29 and elsewhere). By this aspect of the symbolism of salt it has been usual to explain the treatment meted out by Abimelech to the city of Shechem in the early narrative, Judges 9:45: ‘He beat down the city and sowed it with salt.’ It is more in harmony, however, with the fundamental conception of the ban (see Ban) to regard the strewing of the site of the city with salt as symbolizing its complete dedication to J" (see the parallels adduced in EBi iv. col. 4249 f.).

A. E. S. Kennedy.

Salt, City of

A city of Judah (Joshua 15:61, 62). It may be inferred to have occupied some position on the western shore of the Dead Sea, between En-gedi and Khashm Usdum (the salt mountain).

Salt Sea

See Dead Sea.