Sanhedrim – Science

Sanhedrim

The Gr. word synedrion (EV council) became so familiar to the Jews that they adopted it in the form of Sanhedrin, which occurs very frequently both in Josephus and in the Talmud.

1. According to Rabbinical tradition, the Sanhedrin was originally created by Moses in obedience to Divine command (cf . Numbers 11:16), and it is taught that this assembly existed, and exercised judicial functions, throughout the whole period of Biblical history right up to Talmudic times. That this cannot have been the case is seen already in the fact that, according to Biblical authority itself, king Jehoshaphat is mentioned as having instituted the supreme court at Jerusalem (2 Chronicles 19:8) but that this court cannot have been identical with the Sanhedrin of later times is clear from the fact that, whereas the latter had governing powers as well as judicial functions, the former was a court of justice and nothing else. It is possible that the ‘elders’ mentioned in the Book of Ezra (5:5, 9 6:7, 14 10:8) and ‘rulers’ in the Book of Nehemiah (2 4 <")• " 5:7 7:5) constituted a body which to some extent corresponded to the Sanhedrin properly so called. But seeing that the Sanhedrin is often referred to as a Gerousia (.i.e. an aristocratic, as distinct from a democratic, body), and that as such it is not mentioned before the time of Antiochus the Great (B.C. 223-187), it is reasonably certain that, in its more developed form at all events, it did not exist before the Greek period. The Sanhedrin is referred to under the name Gerousia (EV senate) in 2 Maccabees 1 4:44. Judith 4:8 l l» 15:8 and elsewhere in the Apocr., in Acts 5:21. and frequently in Josephus, e.g. Ant. iv. viii. 41.

The Sanhedrin was conceived of mainly as a court of justice, the equivalent Heb. term being Beth Din, and it is in this sense that it is usually referred to in the NT (see, e.g., Matthew 5:22 26:59, Mark 15:1, Luke 22, John 11:47, Acts 4:15 5:21 6:12 22:30 etc.). Sometimes in the NT the terms Presbyterion and Gerousia are used in reference to the Sanhedrin (Acts 5:21 22:5). A member of this court was called a bouleutes (‘councillor’). Joseph of Arimathaea was one (Mark 15, Luke 23:50). The Sanhedrin was abolished after the destruction of Jerusalem (a.d. 70).

2. As regards the composition of the Sanhedrin, the hereditary high priest stood at the head of it, and in its fundamental character it formed a sacerdotal aristocracy, and represented the nobility, i.e. predominantly the Sadducsean interest; but under Herod, who favoured the Pharisaic party in his desire to restrict the power and influence of the old nobility, the Sadducaean element in the Sanhedrin became less prominent, while that of the Pharisees increased. So that during the Roman period the Sanhedrin contained representatives of two opposed parties, the priestly nobility with its Sadducsean sympathies, and the learned Pharisees. According to the Mishna, the Sanhedrin consisted of seventy-one members (Sanhed. i. 6); when a vacancy occurred the members co-opted some one ‘from the congregation’ to fill the place (Sanhed. iv. 4), and he was admitted by the ceremony of the laying on of hands.

3. The extent of the Sanhedrin’ a jurisdiction varied at different times in its history; while, in a certain sense, it exercised civil jurisdiction over all Jewish communities, wherever they existed, during the time of Christ this was restricted to Judasa proper; it was for this reason that it had no judicial authority over Him so long as He remained in Galilee. Its orders were, however, very soon after the time of Christ, regarded as binding by orthodox Jews all over the world. Thus we see that it could issue warrants for the apprehension of Christians in Damascus to the synagogue there (Acts 9:2 22:5 26:12) but the extent to which Jewish communities outside of Judaea were willing to submit to such orders depended entirely on how far they were favourably disposed towards the central authority; it was only within the limits of Judaea proper that real authority could be exercised by the Sanhedrin. It was thus the supreme native court, as contrasted with the foreign authority of Rome; to it belonged all such judicial matters as the local provincial courts were incompetent to deal with, or as the Roman procurator did not attend to himself. Above all, it was the final court of appeal for questions connected with the Mosaic Law; its decision having once been given, the judges of the lower courts were, on pain of death, bound to acquiesce in it. The NT offers some interesting examples of the kind of matters that were brought before it: Christ appeared before it on a charge of blasphemy (Matthew 26:57, John 19:7). Peter and John were accused before it of being false prophets and deceivers of the people (Acts 4:5 ff.), Stephen was condemned by it because of blasphemy (Acts 7:57, 58). and Paul was charged with transgression of the Mosaic Law (Acts 22:30). It had independent authority and right to arrest people by its own officers (Matthew 26:47, Mark 14:43. Ac 4»--Si’- "); it had also the power of finally disposing, tftj,lts^own authority, of such cases as did not involve smtence of death (Acts 4:5–23 5:21–40). It was only in cases when the sentence of death was pronounced that the latter had to be ratified by the Roman authorities (John 18:31) the case of the stoning of Stephen must be regarded as an instance of mob-justice. ,

While the Sanhedrin could not hold a court of supreme jurisdiction in the absence, or, at all events, without the consent, of the Roman procurator, it enjoyed, nevertheless, wide powers within the sphere of its extensive jurisdiction. At the same time, it had sometimes to submit to the painful experience of realizing its dependent position in face of the Roman power, even in matters which might be regarded as peculiarly within the scope of its own jurisdiction; for the Roman authorities could at any time take the initiative themselves, and proceed independently of the Jewish court, as the NT testifies, e.g. in the case of Paul’s arrest (see also Acts 23).

4. The Sanhedrin met in the Temple, in what was called the Lishkath ha-Gazith (the ‘Hall of hewn-stones ‘) as a general rule, though an exception is recorded in Matthew 26:57 ff.; Mark 14: The members sat in a semicircle in order to be able to see each other; in front stood clerks of the court, and behind these, three rows of the disciples of the ‘learned men." The prisoner had always to be dressed in mourning. When any one had spoken once in favour of the accused, he could not afterwards speak against him. In case of acquittal the decision might be announced the same day, but a sentence of condemnation was always pronounced on the day following, or later; in the former a simple majority sufficed, in the latter a majority of two-thirds was required.

W. O. E. Oesterley.

Sansannah

An unidentified town in the Negeb (RV ‘the South’) allotted to Judah (Joshua 15:31).

Saph

One of four Philistine champions slain by David’s heroes (2 Samuel 21:18. 1 Chronicles 20:4 [Sippai]).

Saphat

(1 Es S"). His ‘sons’ returned with Zerub. [Ezr. and Neh. omit]. 2. 1 Esdras 5:9 = Shephatiah, Ezra 2:4.

Safhatias

Safhatias (1 Esdras 8:34) = Shephatiah, Ezra 8:8; called Saphat in 5’.

Saphuthi

Saphuthi (1 Esdras 5:33) = Shephatiah, Ezra 2.

Sapphira

See Ananias, No. 1.

Sapphire

See Jewels and Pbeciods Stones.

Sarabias

Sarabias (1 Esdras 9:48) = Sherebiah, Nehemiah 8:7.

Sarah

Sarah or SARAI. — 1. ‘Sarai’ is the form used previous to Genesis 17:15. and ‘Sarah’ afterwards, in harmony with the change of name there narrated (by P). It is probable that there is no real significance in the change, -ai being an old feminine ending found in Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic, while -ah is the common feminine ending. Sarah means ‘princess.’ The occurrence of the name Sa-ra-a-a in an Assyrian letter (K 1274) adds no definite information. Sarah was the wife of Abraham, and also his half-sister (Genesis 12 20:12) her parentage is not given further. She was taken as wife by the king of Egypt and also by Abimelech king of Gerar, and afterwards restored to Abraham (12:10–20 20). The former incident is in J, the latter in E; they may be different versions of the same story. The statement that she was at least 65 years old at this time (Genesis 12:4, of. 17:17) seems inconsistent with these incidents, and especially with the statement concerning her beauty (12:11). It is to be remembered, however, that the dates belong to P. Sarah was long barren, but finally Isaac was bom after supernatural intervention, when she was 90 years old (21:1–7 [P]). Through jealousy Sarah illtreated Hagar, her handmaid, the concubine of Abraham, and finally drove her away with her son Ishmael (16. 21:8–21). The incident is in harmony with the regulations of the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi (§§ 144-147). Sarah died at the age of 127 (P), and was buried in the cave of Machpelah (Genesis 23). In the NT she is mentioned in Romans 4:19 9:9. Hebrews 11:11. 1 Peter 3:6, Galatians 4:21

2. Sarah, daughter of Raguel and wife of Tobias (Tobit 3:7, 17 and elsewhere). George B. Beery.

Saraias

See Seraiah, 2.

Saramel

(RV Asaramel). An expression, ‘in Asaramel,’ in 1 Maccabees 14:28 in the inscription upon the memorial pillar of Simon Maccabseus. A place-name is indicated by the Greek text. This reading, however, is unsuitable, and it is best to assume, as has been proposed, that there was originally written a Heb. title of Simon, additional to ‘the high-priest,’ meaning ‘prince of the people of God’ (Sar-‘am-‘U). See, for other explanations, ExpT Aug. 1900, p. 523 ff.

J. F. McCURDY.

Saraph

A descendant of Shelah (1 Chronicles 4:22).

Sarchedonus

Sarchedonus (Tobit 1:21 f.) = Esarhaddon (wh. see).

SARDI8 was the capital of the ancient kingdom of Lydia on the western coast of Asia Minor, and in the 6th cent. B.C. one of the most powerful cities of the world. It stood on one of the alluvial hills between Mount Tmolus and the sea, about 1500 feet above and south of the great plain of the river Hermus, and was inaccessible except by a neck of land on the south. The date of its foundation must be about B.C. 1200, and the situation was ideal for an early fortified capital of a kingdom. As time advanced, extension was necessary, and a lower city was built on the west and north sides of the original city, near the little river Pactolus, and probably also on the east side. The older city now acted as acropolis, or citadel, for the later. This rich Oriental city, whose wealth depended on well-cultivated land and incessant commerce, was for centuries to the Greek the type of an Oriental despotism, under which all must sooner or later bend. Its absorption was not without its effects on the conquerors, and Sardis became the home of a newer Hellenism, different from the old.

Crcesus was king of Lydia in the second half of the 6th cent, b.c, and planned a campaign against Cyrus, the Persian king. He proceeded with the greatest caution, and crossed the river Halys. There he was completely defeated. He returned to prepare a second army, but Cyrus ptirsued him in haste, and besieged him in Sardis before he could get it ready. The citadel was captured by means of a climber who worked his way up by an oblique crevice in the perpendicular rock. The city was similarly captured by Antiochus the Great from Achaius late in the third century B.C. The patron deity of the city was Cybele, but she is conceived as possessing different attributes from those usually associated with the name. A special characteristic was the power of restoring life to the dead. The city suffered greatly from an earthquake in a.d. 17, and received a large donation as well as a remission of five years’ taxation from the Emperor Tiberius. The greatness of the city under the Roman empire was due entirely to its past reputation. The acropolis ceased to be inhabited, being no longer necessary for purposes of defence. Its use was revived in the earlier Turkish days, but for long there has been no settlement at Sardis. Its place is taken by Salikli, above 5 miles to the east.

According to the view of Sir W. M. Ramsay, Sardis is alluded to in the Apocalypse, as are all the other six churches, as a centre of influence in its district. One of the cities within its sphere was Magnesia. The letter addressed by the writer of the Apocalypse to Sardis, with which, as with the other six cities named there, he was obviously well acquainted, shows that the church at Sardis was practically dead. It had degenerated and decayed from its early promise to an extent equalled by no other city. There were In it only a few faithful souls. That there is a remarkable analogy between the history of the city and the history of the church may be seen even from the bald account of the former just given. The mstability of the city in history finds its parallel in the immorality of the church members. Most of the Christians had fallen back to the pagan level of life. The few noble ones shall have their names enrolled in the list of the citizens of heaven. The letter doubtless had a good effect. Christianity survived at Sardis. It was the capital of the province Lydia, instituted about A.D. 295. The bishop of Sardis was metropolitan of Lydia, and sixth in order of precedence of all the bishops subject to the patriarch of Constantinople. Not far from Sardis there dwells in the present day a people whose customs differ so much from those of Mohammedanism that It is probable they would become Christian if they dared. A. Souter.

Sardius

See Jewels and Precious Stones.

Sardonyx

See Jewels and Precious Stones.

Sarea

One of Ezra’s swift scribes (2 Esdras 14:24).

Sarepta

See ZarephaTh.

Sargon

Sargon (Isaiah 20:1). The father of Sennacherib and successor of Shalmaneser iv., king of Assyria (b.c. 722- 705). Samaria was captured early in his reign, and Sargon carried away 27,200 of the chief inhabitants, the city being placed under Assyrian governors. Sargon’s advent to the throne marked a change of dynasty, and he had to subdue insurrection right and left. Merodach-baladan, once king of the ChaldsBan State of Bit-Yakln, seized Babylon, and was supported by the Elaraites. Sargon defeated the latter, but was obliged to leave Merodach-baladan undisturbed for twelve years, while he subdued the northern rivals of Assyria, Armenia and its neighbours. In B.C. 720 he faced a combination of the W. States under Ilu-bihdi, who drew Hamath, Arpad, Damascus, and Palestine into revolt. This was soon put down, Hamath was colonized by Assyrians, and the Philistines and Egyptians were defeated at Raphia. Then Carchemish was captured and absorbed into the empire (b.c. 717). But Sargon’s greatest difficulty was with Armenia, and the rebellions it perpetually stirred up. He was, however, successful in the end, and subdued all the region S. of the Caucasus and parts of Cilicia, as well as parts of Media. In B.C. 711 an Assyrian army was sent against Palestine, where Merodach-baladan had been intriguing and had drawn Hezekiah into the conspiracy. Ashdod was captured, and Judah, Moab, and Edom submitted. Merodach-baladan was expelled from Babylon (b.c. 709), and then chased from Bit-Yakin, whither he had retreated. Sargon was welcomed as the deli,verer of the native Babylonians, and became king of Babylon. He sent his statue to be erected at Idalion, in Cyprus. In B.C. 708 Commagene was annexed. Sargon was killed B.C. 705, — how or where is not yet clear. He founded a magnificent city at Dur-Sargon, the modern Khorsabad. C. H. W. Johns.

Sarid

A border town of Zebulun (Joshua 19:10, 12) Probably Sarid is a copyist’s error for Sadid, which may be identified with Tell Shadud, to the N. of the plain of Esdraelon.

Sarothie

A family of ‘Solomon’s servants’ (1 Es 5«).

8ARSECHIM seems to be the name of a Bab. official (Jeremiah 39:3), but the versions — Nabousachar, Nabousarach, Sarsackeim — suggest that the text was early corrupt. There is no known Bab. name which exactly corresponds to any of these variants, and it is impossible to identify the person intended. C. H. W. Johns.

Satan

1. In the OT.— The term Satan is Hebrew and means ‘adversary.’ In the earlier usage of the language it is employed in the general sense of ‘adversary,’ personal or national: (cf. e.g. Numbers 22:22. 2 Samuel 19:22. 1 Kings 5:4 11:25 etc.). In such passages no trace of a distinct being designated ‘Satan’ is to be seen. Such a being meets us for the first time in the OT in the prologue (chs. 1 and 2) of the Bk. of Job, in the person of one of ‘the sons of God’ who bears the title of ‘the Satan.’ Here Satan appears as a member of the celestial council of angelic beings who have access to the presence of God. His special function is to watch over human affairs and beings with the object of searching out men’s sins and accusing them in the celestial court. He is thus invested with a certain malevolent and malignant character^ but it is to be observed that he has no power to act without the Divine permission being first obtained, and cannot, therefore, be regarded as the embodiment of the power that opposes the Deity. In Zee 3:2 essentially the same view of ‘the Satan’ is presented. But in 1 Oh 21:1 (‘And Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel’) the personality of this being is more distinct: he appears now as ‘Satan’ (a proper name without the article), the tempter who is able to provoke David to number Israel. This is the Chronicler’s (4th or 3rd cent. B.C.) reading of the incident which in the earlier narrative (2 Samuel 24:1) is ascribed to the direct action of God Himself. Here (in Chron.) the work of Satan is apparently conceived of as more or less independent of, and opposed to, the Divine action. 2. In the extra-canonical literature of the OT. — In the later (apocryphal) literature of pre-Christian Judaism the dualistic tendency becomes more pronounced— a tendency powerfully affected by Persian influence, it would seem, which is also apparent in the development of an elaborate Jewish angelology and deraonology. This is most clearly visible in the apocalyptic literature. In the oldest part of the Bk. of Enoch (chs. 1-36), dating, perhaps, from about B.C. 180, the origin of the demons is traced to the fall of the angelic watchers, the ‘sons of God’ who corrupted themselves with the ‘daughters of men’ (Genesis 6:1 f.). It was from the offspring of these sinful unions — the ‘giants’ or nephUlm — that the demons were sprung. Of these demons the Asmodeeus of the Bk. of Tobit (3:8, 17) seems to have been regarded as the king (Bab. Pes. llOo). The name Asmodceus (or in Heb. Ashmedai) has plausibly been connected with the ancient Persian Aeshma daeva, i.e. ‘the covetous or lustful demon’; in its Hebrew form it suggests the meaning ‘destroyer’ or ‘bringer of destruction,’ and this demon may be intended by ‘the destroyer’ of Wisdom 18:25 and by the Apollyon (=‘Destroyer’) of Revelation 9:11. In the latest part of the Bk. of Enoch, however, the so-called ‘Similitudes’ (chs. xxxvii-lxxi), which perhaps dates from about B.C. 64, ‘the fallen watchers’ (and their descendants) are carefully distinguished from the Satans, who apparently belong to ‘a counter kingdom of evil’ which existed before the fall of the watchers recorded in Genesis 6:1, the latter, in consequence of their fall, becoming subject to the former. Apparently these ‘Satans’ are ruled by a single chief, who is styled ‘Satan’ in one passage (Enoch 54). ‘Their functions were threefold: they tempted to evil (69) they accused the dwellers upon earth (40:7) they punished the condemned. In this last character they are technically called " angels of punishment" (53 56 62 63) (Charles).

In the Bk. of Wisdom (2:24; ‘by the envy of the devil death entered into the world’) we already meet with the identification of the Serpent of Genesis 3 with Satan, which afterwards became a fixed element in belief, and an allusion to the same idea may be detected in the Psalms of Solomon 4:11. where the prosperous wicked man is said to be ‘like a serpent, to pervert wisdom, speaking with the words of transgressors.’ The same identification also meets us in the Book of the Secrets of Enoch (7 1st cent, a.d.), where, moreover, satanology shows a rich development (the pride, revolt, and fall of Satan are dwelt upon). Cf. art. Fall.

The secondary Jewish (Rabbinical) Literature which is connected with the text of the OT (esp. the Targums and the Midrashim) naturally reflects beliefs that were current at a later time. But they are obviously connected closely with those that have already been mentioned. The Serpent of Genesis 3 becomes ‘the old serpent’ who seduced Adam and Eve. The chief of the Satans is Sammael, who is often referred to as ‘the angel of death’: and in the Secrets of Enoch he is prince of the demons and a magician. It is interesting to note that in the later Midrash one of the works of Messiah ben-Joseph is the slaying of Sammael, who is ‘the Satan, the prime mover of all evil.’ In the earlier literature his great opponent is the archangel Michael. The Rabbinic doctrine of the ‘evil impulse’ (.yetser ra’), which works within man like a leaven (Berak. 17a), looks like a theological refinement, which has sometimes been combined with the popular view of Satan (Satan works his evil purpose by the instrumentality of the ‘evil impulse’).

3. In the NT. — In the NT, Satan and his kingdom are frequently referred to. Sometimes the Hebrew name ‘Satan’ is used (e.g. Mark 3:26 4:15 etc.), sometimes its Greek equivalent (diabolos: cf. our word ‘diabolical’), which is translated ‘devif,’ and which means ‘accuser’ or ‘calumniator.’ In Matthew 12:26, 27 (cf. 10:25) Satan is apparently identified with Beelzebub (or Beelzebul), and is occasionally designated ‘the evil one’ (Matthew 13 etc.; so, perhaps, also in the Lord’s Prayer: ‘deliver us from the evil one’). Some scholars are of opinion that the name Beelzebub means not ‘fly-god’ but ‘enemy’ (i.e. the enemy of God). He is called the ‘prince of the devils (or demons)’ in Matthew 12:24, just as Sammael, ‘the great prince in heaven,’ is designated the ‘chief of Satans’ in the Midrash.

The demonology that confronts us in the NT has striking points of contact with that which is developed in the Enochic literature. The main features of the latter, in fact, reappear. The ‘angels which kept not their first estate’ (Jude^, 2 Peter 2:4) are the angelic watchers whose fall through lust is described in Enoch 6-16. Their punishment is to be kept imprisoned in perpetual darkness. In Enoch the demons, who are represented as the evil spirits which went forth from the souls of the giant offspring of the fallen watchers, exercise an evil activity, working moral ruin on the earth till the final judgment. In exactly the same way the demons are described in the NT as disembodied spirits (Mt 12, Lk llM-26). The time of their punishment is to be the final judgment (ct. Matthew 8:29: ‘Art thou come hither to torment us before the time"!’). They belong to and are subject to Satan. As in the Book of Enoch, Satan is represented in the NT as the ruler of a counterkingdom of evil (cf. Matthew 12:26, Luke 11:18 ‘if Satan cast out Satan, how shall his kingdom stand?’); he led astray angels (Revelation 12:4) and men (2 Corinthians 11:3) his functions are to tempt (Mt #-12, Luke 22:31). to accuse (Revelation 12:10). and to punish (1 Corinthians 5:5: impenitent sinners delivered over to Satan for destruction of the flesh). It should be added that in the Fourth Gospel and Johannine Epp. the lesser demonic agencies disappear. Opposition is concentrated in the persons of Christ and the devil. The latter is the ruler of this world (John 16:11), and enslaves men to himself through sin. The Son of God is manifested for the express purpose of destroying the devil’s works (1 John 3:8).

Both in St. Paul (cf. Romans 16:20, 2 Corinthians 11:2, 3) and in the Apocalypse Satan is identified with the Serpent of Genesis 3. It is also noteworthy that St. Paul shared the contemporary belief that angelic beings inhabited the higher (heavenly) regions, and that Satan also with his retinue dwelt not beneath the earth, but in the lower atmospheric region; cf. Ephesians 2:2. where ‘the prince of the power of the air’=Satan (cf. also Ephesians 6:12 and Luke 10:18 ‘I beheld Satan fallen as lightning from heaven’). For Satan’s r61e in the Apocalypse see art. EscHATOLOGY. Cf. also art. Devil.

4 . The attitude of our Lord towards the Satan -belief . — Our Lord, as is clearly apparent in the Synoptic tradition, recognized the existence and power of a kingdom of evil, with organized demonic agencies under the control of a supreme personality, Satan or Beelzebub. These demonic agencies are the source of every variety of physical and moral evil. One principal function of the Messiah is to destroy the works of Satan and his subordinates (Mark 1:24, 34 3:11, 12, 15 etc.). Maladies traced to demonic possession play a large part in the Synoptic narratives (see Devil, Possession). In the expulsion of demons by His disciples, Jesus sees the overthrow of Satan’s power (Luke 10:18). The evil effected by Satanic agency is intellectual and moral as well as physical (Mk #5, Matthew 13; cf. 2 Corinthians 4:4). That our Lord accepted the reality of such personal agencies of evil cannot seriously be questioned; nor is it necessary to endeavour to explain this fact away. The problem is to some extent a psychological one. Under certain conditions and in certain localities the sense of the presence and potency of evil personalities has been painfully and oppressively felt by more than one modern European, who was not prone to superstition. It is also literally true that the light of the gospel and the power of Christ operate still in such cases to ‘destroy the works of darkness’ and expel the demons. G. H. Box.

Satchel

See Bag.

Sathrabuzanes

Sathrabuzanes (1 Esdras 6 7) =Shetharbozenai, Ezra 5:3, 6 6:6, 13.

Satraps

RV tr. of ‘dchashdarpenlm, Ezra 8:36, Esther 3:12 8:9 9:3 (AV lieutenants), Daniel 3 6:1 ff. (AV princes). The term stands for the Pers. khshatrapHvan (=‘protectors of the realm’). The satrap was the governor of a whole province, and he held the position of a vassal king. His power, however, was checked by the presence of a royal scribe, whose duty it was to report to the ‘great king’ on the administration of the province.

Satyr

The Heb. word sS’Ir means primarily ‘he-goat,’ but the plur. se’%rlm is tr. in Leviticus 17:7 and 2 Chronicles 11:15, AV ‘devils,’ RV ‘he-goats’ ; in Isaiah 13:21 34:14 EV ‘satyrs,’ RVm ‘he-goats.’ Probably too in 2 Kings 23:8 she’ Orlm (‘gates’) should be se’lrXm, and tr. as in Leviticus 17:7. In these passages some ‘hairy’ demon is to be inferred to whom ‘sacrifices’ were made (Leviticus 17:7), ‘high places’ erected (2 Kings 23:8). and ‘priests’ set apart (2 Chronicles 11:15). The association of these creatures with the mythological Lilith (wh. see) in Isaiah 34:14 is specially noticeable.

E. W. G. Masterman.

Saul

1. Son of Kish, a Benjamite, the first king of Israel. We first meet him about to abandon the search for his father’s asses, when his servant suggested consulting Samuel. As it was customary to bring a present to aseer, and the wallet was empty, Saul hesitated till the servant produced the fourth part of a shekel of silver to give to the man of God. The seer. Divinely prepared for their arrival, met them as he was on his way to the high place to sacrifice. A banquet was made ready, and special honour paid to Saul by Samuel. The seer told the seekers that the asses had been found, and broached the matter of the kingdom to Saul, and anointed him as he was leaving. Saul was given certain signs in attestation of Samuel’s message, and after leaving the seer’s house, where he and his servant spent the night, he met a band of prophets, and soon was prophesying among them, to the marvel of his acquaintances (1 Samuel 10:10). This narrative gives no hint that the people asked for a king, or that his selection would be displeasing to either Samuel or Jehovah.

The account is interrupted at 10:17 by one of a different temper. The people demand a king, which Samuel interprets to be a rejection of Jehovah, their true king, and Saul, after protest, is elected by lot at Mizpah. He remained quietly at home till Nahash’s cruel demand that the men of Jabesh-gilead should surrender to him, and each one lose the right eye, roused him. He was ploughing in the field when the news reached him, and immediately sacrificed the oxen, sending out parts of the sacrifice to his brethren with the command that they should follow him. When the army was mustered he marched to Jabesh-gilead and administered a crushing defeat to Nahash, after which his grateful countrymen made him king at Gt’iffo! (ch. 11). A still greaternecessity for a king appears in the encroachments of the Philistines. Saul and Jonathan, his son, were encamped in Michmash and Gibeah (Geba), when Jonathan smote the ‘garrison’(7) of the Philistines in Geba, thus precipitating the struggle. The plan of the Philistines was to send out plundering parties, and Jonathan threw the whole camp into confusion by surprising one of its guerilla headquarters (13:1–3 4:1 f.). When Saul heard of the flight of the enemy he inquired of the oracle what to do, but the rout was so apparent that he joined pursuit without the answer. The destruction of the enemy would have been greater had not Saul put a taboo on food. In the evening the famished warriors fell upon the cattle, and ate without sacrificing till the reported impiety reached the ears of Saul, who legitimated the meal by sacrificing at a great stone. As he failed to receive an answer from the oracle, when he inquired whether he should pursue the Philistines farther, Saul concluded that some one had sinned. An inquiry was taken to the oracle, and the fault was found to He with Jonathan, who confessed to having tasted honey. He was, however, delivered by the people from the penalty, for Saul had sworn that he should die (14).

This narrative (chs. 13. 14) is interrupted at 13:8–15 by an accotint which represents Samuel as taking issue with Saul for sacrificing at the end of an appointed period of seven days, and announcing his rejection (see art. Samtjbl, p. 823"). We have from another source (ch. 15) a story of the encounter with Amalek, against whom Samuel sent Saul with instructions to destroy men, women, children, and spoil. Saul, however, spares Agag, and part of the booty. This is now assigned as the reason for his rejection. Saul acknowledged his fault, but begged Samuel to honour him before the people by sacrificing with him. In his importunity he lays hold of Samuel’s garment, which is rent, and becomes the symbol of the kingdom wrested from Saul. Samuel relents and worships with him.

The second stage of Saul’s life concerns his relations with David. Saul is advised to employ music as a relief from a deep-seated mental trouble, called ‘an evil spkit from the Lord.’ David, a skilled harper and celebrated soldier, is engaged. Saul loves him, and makes him his armour-bearer (16:14, 23). The Philistines again assemble, this time at Socoh; Goliath issues his challenge, but no one responds. The lad David, who had come to the camp to visit his brethren, learns of the proffered reward, meets the boaster m single combat, and kills him. In this story Saul seems weak, irresolute, and unacquainted with David (ch. 17). David’s growing popularity and prowess lead Saul to attempt his life. Michal, Saul’s daughter, is offered to him in marriage in return for one hundred Philistines. The hazard involved failed to accomplish his death. Then David’s house is surrounded, but Michal manages David’s escape through a window (18:6–9 20:29 19:11–17). Merab, Saul’s elder daughter, was also offered to David, but withdrawn when he should have had her. This seems to be an effort to explain why David did not receive Saul’s daughter after he had slain the giant. David flees to Ramah, and Saul, seeking him there, is seized with the prophetic frenzy and rendered powerless (19:18–24). David again flees, and receives help from the priests at Nob. So enraged was Saul that he ordered the slaughter of the entire priesthood there (chs. 20-21). Saul had David all but captured in the hills of Ziph, when a raid of the Philistines called him away (23:14–29). Twice Saul was in the power of David, who refused to harm the Lord’s anointed (chs. 24. 26).

The circumstances connected with Saul’s death are told in a dramatic way. The Philistines had gathered together at Aphek, while Saul held the fateful plains of Megiddo at Jezteel. Answer came from neither prophet nor priest. Then in despair he applied to the necromancer at Endor, but received only a hopeless message. The battle joins; Saul’s sons are slain; sore pressed, he calls on his armour-bearer to slay him, but being refused he falls upon his sword and dies. The following day the Philistines severed the heads of Saul and his sons, and exposed the bodies on the walls of Beth-shan, whence the grateful Jabesh-gileadites brought them away by night (chs. 28. 31). An Amalekite, who brought the story of Saul’s death to David, claimed that he himself slew him, and was promptly executed by David (2 Samuel 1:1–16).

2. Saul of Tarsus. See Paul. J. H. Stevenson.

Savias

Savias (1 Esdras 8:2) = tTzzi, Ezra 7:4. SAVIOUR.— See Salvation.

Savour

The word ‘savour’ is used in AV literally for taste, as Matthew 5 ‘If the salt have lost his savour,’ and for smell, as 2 Esdras 2:12 ‘an ointment of sweet savour.’ It is also used figuratively in the sense of reputation, < Exodus 6:21 ‘Ye have made our savour to be abhorred in the eyes of Pharaoh’ (lit. ‘our smell to stink’ as AVra).

"The verb ‘to savour’ is either ‘to taste or smell of,’ as in Pref. to AV ‘to savour more of curiosity than of wisdom’; or ‘to seek out or to search by tasting or smelling,’ used fig. in Mark 8:33 ‘Thou savourest not the things that be of God.’

Saw

See Arts and Crafts, § 1.

Scab

See Medicine, p. 699’‘.

Scaling Ladder

See FoHTimoATioN and Sieqe- CRAFT, § 6.

Scall

See Medicine, p. 600".

Scape-goat

See Azazel, Atonement [Day of].

Scarlet

See Colours, § 4.

SCEPTRE, as tr. of shibet, may stand either for a short ornamental sceptre such as appears in some representations of the Assyrian king, or for a long staff reaching to the ground, which characterizes some portrayals of the Persian monarchs. The long sceptre is simply an ornamented staff, the short one is a development of the club or mace. On On 49" see Lawgiver and Shiloh. On the difficulty of approaching the presence of the Persian kings referred to in Esther 4:11, cf. also Herod, iii. 118, 140.

Sceva

At Ephesus, where St. Paul worked ‘special powers’ (Acts 19:11 ff.), certain itinerant Jews (RV ‘strolling’ perhaps conveys too much the idea of ‘vagabond’) endeavoured to exorcise evil spirits by naming over them the name of Jesus. Among them were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jewish ‘chief priest’ (probably one of the high-priestly family). In v. 16 the demoniac overcornes " both of them’ (RV). Sceva himself is not said to have been present. The Incident led to many conversions, and several brought and destroyed their books of magic. _ Thereia a difiBoultyin thetext. Seven sons are mentioned in v. 14. and theseare reduced to two in v. 16. Perhaps St. Luke is here abbreviating a written source which detailed the incident more f uUy , and explained that two out of the seven sons tried to exorcise this particular demon. Inferior MSS (followed by AV) substitute ‘them’ for ‘both of them,’ and the Bezan Codex (D) omits the word ‘seven’ altogether, calls Sceva merely *a pnest,’ and adds other phrases which are expansions of our text. But these seem to be but explanations of a difficult original text; and the R V is grobably correct. The word ‘seven’ could never have een inserted if it were not St. Luke’s.

Prof. Ramsay thinks that the whole passage Is unworthy of Luke (.St. Paul the Traveller’, p. 272f.). But it is unsafe to judge first-century thought by that of our own day. The Apostolic age firmly believed in possession by evil spirits; and there is really nothing in this chapter unlike what we read elsewhere in NT.

A. J. Maclean.

Schism

See Heresy.

School, Schoolmaster

‘School’ occurs in EV only in Acts 19:9 for the lecture-room of an Ephesian rhetorician (cf . Education, p. 2041") ; ‘schoolmaster’ only in Galatians 3:24, 25 AV, for which RV has ‘tutor.’ The original is paidagSgos, lit. ‘child-conductor,’ ‘pedagogue’ — an old and trusty slave, who accompanied the Greek child to and from school and ‘was bound never to lose sight of him, to carry his lyre and tablets, and to keep him out of mischief (Gardner and Jevons, Manual of Gr. Antiq. 303). He had nothing to do with the teaching, as is suggested by both the English renderings. The same word is rendered’ instructors ‘in 1 Corinthians 4:15 A V (RV, as before,’ tutors ‘) . In AV the latter word is found only in Galatians 4:2 as the tr. of an entirely different word, correctly rendered’ guardians ‘by RV. For the duties of guardians in Gr. law see op. cit. 652 f. A. R. S. Kennedy. i

Schools

See Education.

Science

The word ‘science’ occurs in AV only twice (Daniel 1:4. 1 Timothy 6:20), and in both places it simply means ‘knowledge’; as in Barlowe’s Dialoge, p. 109, " There is no truthe, no raercye, nor scyence of god in the yerth.’

SCmiTAB. — See Fauchion.