Tabret – Target

Tabret

Tabret (see art. Tabeh) is AV tr. of Wph in Genesis 31:27, 1 Samuel 10:5 i8«. Isaiah 5:12 24:8 30, Jeremiah 31:4, Ezekiel 28. The same Heb. word is tr. ‘timbrel’ in Exodus 15, Judges 11:34, 2 Samuel 6:5, 1 Chronicles 13:8, Job 21:12, Psalms 81:2 149:3 150:4. It might have been well to drop both ‘timbrel’ and ‘tabret,’ neither of which conveys any clear sense to a modem ear, and adopt some such rendering as ‘tambourine’ or ‘hand-drum’. The AV rendering of Job 17:6 ‘aforetime I was as a tabret,’ has arisen from a confusion of tBpheth. ‘spitting’ with Wph ‘tambourine.’ The words mean ‘I am become one to be spit on in the face’ (RV ‘an open abhorring’).

Tabrimmon

The father of Benhadad (1 Kings 15:18).

Taches

An old word of French origin used by AV to render the Heb. geraMm, which occurs only in P’s description of the Tabernacle (Exodus 26:6, 11, 33 35:11 etc.). The Gr. rendering denotes the rings set in eyelets at the edge of a sail for the ropes to pass through. The Heb. word evidently signifies some form of hook or clasp (so RV) like the Roman fibula.

Tackling

Tackling in Isaiah 33 means simply a ship’s ropes ; in Acts 27:19 it is used more generally of the whole gearing (RVm ‘furniture’).

Tadmor

(Palmyra). In 2 Chronicles 8:4 we read that Solomon built ‘Tadmor in the [Syrian] desert.’ It has long been recognized that Tadmor is here a mistake for ‘Tamar in the [Judaean] desert’ of the corresponding passage in 1 Kings (9"). The Chronicler, or one of his predecessors, no doubt thought it necessary to emend in this fashion a name that was scarcely known to him. (That it is really the city of Tadmor so famous in after times that is meant, is confirmed by the equally uuhistorical details given in 2 Chronicles 8 regarding the Syrian cities of Hamath and Zobah.) Hence arose the necessity for the Jewish schools to change the Tamar of 1 Kings 9:18 in turn into Tadmor [the Qerg in that passage], so as to agree with the text of the Chronicler. The LXX I translator of 1 Kings 9:18 appears to have already had this correction before him. Nevertheless it is quite certain that Tamar is the original reading. But the correction supplies a very important evidence that at the time when Chronicles was composed (c. b.c. 200), Tadmor was already a place of note, around the founding of which a fabulous splendour had gathered, so that it appeared fitting to attribute it to Solomon. This fiction maintained itself, and received further embellishments. The pre-Islamic poet Nabigha (v. 22 fl., ed. Ahlwardt, c. A.D. 600) relates that, by Divine command, the demons built Solomon’s Tadmor by forced labour. This piece of information he may have picked up locally; what he had in view would be, of course, the remains, which must have been still very majestic, of the city whose climax of splendour was reached in the 2nd and 3rd cent. a.d.

Tadmor, of whose origin and earlier history we know nothing, lay upon a great natural road through the desert, not tar from the Euphrates, and not very tar from Damascus. It was thus between Syria, Babylonia, and Mesopotamia proper. Since water, although not in great abundance, was also found on the spot, Tadmor supplied a peaceable and intelligent population with all the conditions necessary tor a metropolis of the caravan trade. Such we find in the case of Palmyra, whose identity with Tadmor was all along maintained, and has recently been assured by numerous inscriptions. The first really historical mention of the place (b.c. 37 or 36) tells how the wealth of this centre of trade incited M. Antony to a pillaging campaign (Appian, Bell. Civ. v. 9).

The endings of the two names Tadmor and Palmyra are the same, but not the first syllable. It is not clear why the Westerns made such an alteration in the form. ‘The name Palmyra can hardly have anything to do with palms. It would, indeed, be something very remarlcable if m this Eastern district the Lat. palma was used at so early a date in the formation of names. The Oriental form Tadmor is to be kept quite apart from tdmdr, ‘palm.’ Finally, it is unlikely that the palm was ever extensively cultivated on the spot.

Neither in the OT nor in the NT is there any other mention of Tadmor (Palmyra), and Josephus names it only when he reproduces the alDove passage of Chronicles (Arii. VIII. vi. 1). The place exercised, indeed, no considerable influence on the history either of ancient Israel or of early Christianity. There is therefore no occasion to go further into the history, once so glorious and finally so tragic, of the great city, or to deal with the fortunes of the later somewhat inconsiderable place, which now, in spite of its imposing ruins, is desolate in the extreme, but which still bears the ancient name Tadmor (Tedmur, Tudmur). Th. N oldeke.

Tamah

An Ephraimite clan (Numbers 26:35 <■"), 1 Chronicles 7:25) gentilic name Tahanites in Numbers 26:35 ws).

Tahash

A son of Nahor (Genesis 22:24).

Tahath

1. A Kohathite Levite (1 Chronicles 6:24). 2. 3. Two (unless the name has been accidentally repeated) Ephraimite families (1 Chronicles 7:20). 4. An unidentified ‘station’ of the Israelites (Numbers 33:26 f.).

Tahohemonite

Tahohemonite (AV Tachmonite) .-See Hachmoni.

Tahfanhes

Tahfanhes (Jeremiah 2:16 43:7 ff. 44:1 46:14, Ezekiel 30:18 (Tehaphnehea), in Judith 1:9 AV Taphnes). — An Egyptian city, the same as the Greek Daphnse, now Tell Defne. The Egyptian name is unknown. It lay on the Pelusiac branch of the Nile, which is now silted up, and the whole region converted into a waste. Petrie’s excavations showed that Daphnse was founded by Psammetichus i. on the 26th Dyn. (b.c. 664-610). Accordmg to Herodotus, it was the frontier fortress of Egypt on the Asiatic side, and was garrisoned by Greeks. In its ruins was found an abundance of Greek pottery, iron armour, and arrowheads of bronze and iron, while numerous small weights bore testimony to the trade that passed through it. The garrison was kept up by the Persians in the 5th cent., and the town existed to a much later period. After the murder of Gedaliah (B.C. 586), Johanan took the remnant of the Jews from Jerusalem, including Jeremiah, to Tahpanhes.

F. Ll. Griffith.

Tahpenes

Tahpenes (1 Kings 11:19). The name of Pharaoh’s wife, whose sister was given to Hadad the Edomite. It has the appearance of an Egyptian name, but has not yet been explained. The name of her son Genubath is not Egyptian. The Pharaoh should be of the weak 21st Dynasty. F. Ll. Griffith.

Tahrea

A grandson of Mephibosheth (1 Chronicles 9:41)) in 836 (prob. by a copyist’s error) Taiea.

TAHTIM HODSHI.THE LAND OF.— A place east of Jordan, which Joab and his officers visited when making the census for David (2 Samuel 24:6). It is mentioned between Gilead and Dan-jaan. The MT, however, is certainly corrupt. In all probability we should read ha-Hitlim- Kddeshah ■= ‘to the land of the Hittites, towards Kadesh Isc. Kadesh on the Orontes].’

Tale

‘Tale’ in AV generally means ‘number or sum,’ as Exodus 5:18 ‘Yet shall ye deliver the tale of bricks.’ And the verb ‘to tell’ sometimes means ‘to number,’ as Genesis 15 ‘Tell the stars, if thou be able to number them,’ where the same Heb. verb is translated ‘tell’ and ‘number.’

Talebearing

See Slander.

Talent

See Money, Weights and Measures.

Talitha Cu

Talitha cu mi. — The command addressed by our Lord to the daughter of Jairus (Mark 5:41). and interpreted by the Evangelist, ‘Maiden, I say unto thee, arise.’ The relating of the actual (Aramaic) words used by Jesus is characteristic of St. Mark’s graphic narrative; cf. 7:11, 34 l*" 15:34.

Tat

Tat iWAI. — 1. A clan resident in Hebron at the time of the Hebrew conquest and driven thence by Caleb (Numbers 13:22, Joshua 15:14, Judges 1:10). 2. Son of Ammihur (or Ammihud), king of Geshur, and a contemporary of David, to whom he gave his daughter Maacah in marriage (2 Samuel 3:3 13:37. 1 Chronicles 3:2).

Talmon

The name of a family of Temple gatekeepers(1 Ch 9", Ezra 2:42. Nehemiah 7:45 11:19 12:25)) called in 1 Esdras 5:28 Tolman. See, also, Telem.

Talmud

(‘learning’). 1. Origin and character, — The Jews have always drawn a distinction between the ‘Oral Law,’ which was handed down for centuries by word of mouth, and the ‘Written Law,’ i.e. the Pentateuch or Five Books of Moses. Both, according to Rabbinical teaching, trace their origin to Moses himself. It has been a fundamental principle of all times that by the side of the ‘Written Law,’ regarded as a summary of the principles and general laws of the Hebrew people, there was this ‘Oral Law’ to complete and explain the ‘Written Law.’ It was an article of faith that in the Pentateuch there was no precept and no regulation, ceremonial, doctrinal, or legal, of which God had not given to Moses all explanations necessary for their application, together with the order to transmit them by word of mouth. The classical passage on this subject runs: ‘Moses received the (oral) law from Sinai, and delivered it to Joshua, and Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the prophets, and the prophets to the men of the Great Synagogue’ (.Pirqe Aboth, 1. 1). This has long been known to be nothing more than a myth; the ‘Oral Law,’ although it no doubt contains elements which are of great antiquity — e.g. details of folklore — really dates from the time that the ‘Written Law’ was read and expounded in the synagogues. Thus we are told that Ezra introduced the custom of having the Torah (‘Law ‘) read in the synagogues at the morning service on Mondays and Thursdays (i.e. the days corresponding to these); for on these days the country people flocked to the towns from the neighbouring districts, as they were the market days. The people had thus an opportunity, which would otherwise have been lacking to them, of hearing the Law read and explained. These explanations of the Law, together with the results of the discussions of them on the part of the sopherlm (‘scribes’), formed the actual ‘Oral Law.’ The first explanatory term applied by the Jews to the ‘Oral Law’ was midrash (‘investigation’), and the Bible itself witnesses to the way in which such investigations were made and expounded to the people: ‘Also Jeshua and Bani . . . and the Levites, caused the people to understand the law; and the people stood in their place. And they read in the book, in the law of God, with an interpretation; and they gave the sense, so that they understood the reading’ (Nehemiah 8:7, 8). But it is clear that the ‘investigations’ must have led to different explanations; so that in order to fix authoritatively what in later days were considered the correct explanations, and thus to ensure continuity of teaching, it became necessary to reduce these to writing; there arose thus (soon after the time of Shammai and Hillel) the ‘Former Mishna’ (Mishna Bishonah), Mishna meaning ‘Second’ Law. This earliest Mishna, which, it is probable, owed its origin to pupils of Shammai and Hillel, was therefore compiled for the purpose of affording teachers both a norm for their decisions and a kind of book of reference for the explanation of difficult passages. But the immense amount of floating material could not be incorporated into one work, and when great teachers arose they sometimes found it necessary to compile their own Mishna; they excluded much which the official Mishna contained, and added other matter which they considered important. This was done by Rabbi Aqiba, Rabbi Meir, and others. But it was not long before the confusion created by this state of affairs again necessitated some authoritative, officially recognized action. It was then that Jehudah ha-Nasi undertook his great redaction of the Mishna, which has survived substantially to the present day. Jehudah ha-Nasi was born about a.d. 135 and died about a.d. 220; he was the first of Hillel’s successors to whose name was added the title ha-Nasi (‘the Prince’); this is the way in which he is usually referred to in Rabbinical writings; he is also spoken of as ‘Rabbi,’ i.e. master par excellence, and occasionally as ha-Qadosh, ‘the Holy,’ on account of his singularly pure and moral life. Owing to his authority and dignity, the Mishna of Jehudah ha-Nasi soon superseded all other collections, and became the only one used in the schools; the object that Jehudah had had in view, that, namely, ofirestoring uniform teaching, was thus achieved. The Mishna as we now have it is not, however, quite as it was when it left Jehudah’s hands; it has undergone modifications of various kinds : additions, emendations, and the like having been made even in jehudah’s lifetime, with his acquiescence, by some of his pupils. The language of the Mishna approximates to that of some of the latest books of the OT, and is known by the name of ‘Neo-Hebraic’; this was the language spoken in Palestine during the second century a.d.; it has a considerable intermixture of foreign elements, especially Greek words Hebraized.

The Mishna is divided into six Sedarim (Aram, for ‘Orders ‘), and each Seder contains a number of treatises; each treatise is divided into chapters, and these again into paragraphs. The names of the six’ Orders,’ which to some extent indicate their contents, are : ZeraHm (‘Seeds’), containing eleven treatises; Mo’ed (‘Festival’), containing twelve treatises; Nashim (‘Women’), containing seven treatises; Nezikin (‘Injuries’), containing ten treatises [this ‘Order’ is called also Yeshu’oth (‘Deeds of help’)]; Qodashim (‘Holy things ‘), containing eleven treatises; and ToMroth (‘Purifications’), containing twelve treatises.

Now the Mishna forms the basis of the Talmud; for just as the Mishna is a compilation of expositions, comments, etc., of the Written Law, and embodies in itself the Oral Law, so the Talmud is an expansion, by means of comment and explanation, of the Mlshna; as the Mishna contains the Pentateuch, with all the additional explanatory matter, so the Talmud contains the Mishna with a great deal more additional matter. ‘The Talmud is practically a mere amplification of the Mishna by manifold comments and additions; so that even those portions of the Mishna which have no Talmud are regarded as component parts of it. . . . The history of the origin of the Talmud is the same as that of the Mishna — a tradition, transmitted orally for centuries, was finally cast into definite literary form, although from the moment in which the Talmud became the chief subject of study in the academies it had a double existence (see below), and was accordingly, in its final stage, redacted in two different forms’ (Bacher in JE xii. S""). Before coming to speak of the actual Talmud itself, it may be well to explain some terms without an understanding of which our whole subject would be very inadequately understood: —

Halakhah. — Under this term the entire legal body of Jewish oral tradition is included; it comes from a verb meaning ‘to go,’ and expresses the way ‘of going’ or ‘acting,’ i.e. custom, usage, which ultimately issues in law. Originally it was used in the plural form Halakhoth, which had reference to the multifarious civil and ritual laws, customs, decrees etc., as handed down by tradition, which were not, however, of Scriptural authority. It was these Halakhoth which were codified by Jehudah ha-Nasi, and to which the- term Mishna became applied. Sometimes the word Halakhah is used for ‘tradition,’ which is binding, in contradistinction to Dire, ‘argument’ (lit. ‘judgment’), which is not necessarily binding.

Haggadah (from the root meaning ‘to narrate ‘) . — This includes the whole of the non-legal matter of Rabbinical literature, such as homilies, stories about Biblical saints and heroes; besides this it touches upon such subjects as astronomy, astrology, medicine, magic, philosophy, and all that would come under the term ‘folklore.’ This word, too, was originally used in the plural Haggadoth. Haggadah is also used in a special sense of the ritual for Passover Eve.

Gemara. — This is an Aramaic word from the root meaning ‘to learn,’ and has the signification of ‘that which has been learned,’ i.e. learning that has been handed down by tradition (Bacher in JE, art. ‘Talmud ‘) ; it has also the meaning’ completion’; in this sense it came to be used as a synonym of Talmud.

Baraitha. — This is an apocryphal Halakhah. When Jehudah ha-Nasi compiled his Mishna, there was a great deal of the Oral Tradition which he excluded from it (see above); other teachers, however, the most important of whom was Rabbi Chijja, gathered these excluded portions into a special collection; these Halakhoth, which are known as Baraithoih, were incorporated into the Talmud; the discussions on them in the Talmud occupy many folios.

Tannaim (‘Teachers ‘). — This was the technical name applied to the teachers of the Mishna; after the close of the Mishna period those who explained it were no more called’ Teachers,’ but only ‘Commentators’ {Amoraim); the dicta of the Tannaim could not be questioned excepting by a Tannaite, but an exception was made in the case of Jehudah ha-Nasi, who was permitted to question the truth of Tannaite pronouncements.

There are two Talmuds, the ‘Jerusalem’ or ‘Talmud of Palestine’ and the ‘Baliiylonian,’ known respectively by their abbreviated forms ‘Yerushalmi’ and ‘Babli.’ The material which went to make up the Yerushalmi had been preparing in the academies, the centres of Jewish learning, of Palestine, chief among which was Tiberias; it was from here that Rabbi Jochanan issued the Yerushalmi, in its earliest form, during the middle of the 3rd cent. a.d. The first editor, or at all events the first compiler, of the Babli was Rabbi Ashi (d. a.d. 430), who presided over the academy of Sura. Both these Talmuds were constantly being added to, and the Yerushalmi was not finally closed until the end of the 4th cent., the Babli not until the beginning of the 6th. The characteristics which differentiated the academies of Palestine from those of Babylonia have left their marks upon the two Talmuds: in Palestine the tendency was to preserve and stereotype tradition, without permitting it to develop itself along natural channels; the result was that the Yerushalmi became choked with traditionalism, circumscribed in its horizon, and in consequence was regarded with less veneration than the Babli, and has always occupied a position of subordinate importance in comparison with this latter. In the Babylonian academies, on the other band, there was a wider outlook, a freer mental atmosphere, and, while tradition was venerated, it was not permitted to impede development in all directions; the Babli therefore absorbed the thought and learning of all Israel’s teachers, and is richer in material, and of more importance generally, than the Yerushalmi. In order to give some idea of what the Talmud is, and of the enormous masses of material gathered together there, the following example may be cited, abbreviated from Bacher (op. cit. xii. 5). It will be remembered that the Talmud is a commentary on the Mishna. In the beginning of the latter occurs this paragraph: ‘During what time in the evening is the reading of the Shema’ begun? From the time when the priests go in to eat their leaven (Leviticus 22:7) until the end of the first watch of the night, such being the words of R. Eliezer. The sages, however, say until midnight, though R. Gamaliel says until the coming of the dawn.’ This is the text upon which the Yerushalmi then comments in three sections; the first section contains the following: a citation from a bariatha with two sayings from R. Jose to elucidate it; remarks on the position of one who is in doubt whether he has read the Shema’; another passage from a baraitha, designating the appearance of the stars as an indication of the time in question; further explanations and passages on the appearance of the stars as bearing on the ritual; other Rabbinical sayings; a baraitha on the division between day and night, and other passages bearing on the same subject; discussion of other baraithas, and further quotations from important Rabbis; a sentence of Tannaitic origin in no way related to the preceding matters, namely, ‘One who prays standing must hold his feet straight,’ and the controversy on this subject between Rabbis Levi and Simon, the one adding, ‘like the angels,’ the other, ‘like the priests’; comments on these two comparisons; further discussion concerning the beginning of the day; Haggadic statements concerning the davro; a conversation between two Rabbis; cosmological comments; dimensions of the firmament, and more Haggadic comments in abimdance; a discussion on the night-watches; Haggadic material concerning David and his harp. Then comes the second section, namely, a Rabbinical quotation; a baraitha on the reading of the Shema’ in the synagogue; other Rabbinical and Haggadic matter; further Haggadic sayings; lastly, section 3 gives R. Gamaliel’s view compared with that of another Rabbi, together with a question which remains unanswered.

This is, of course, the merest skeleton of an example of the mass of commentary which is devoted to the Mishna, section by section. Although the Haggadic element plays a much less important rOle than the Halakhic, still the former is well represented, and is often employed for purposes of edification and rebuke, as well as for instruction. The following outline of a Haggadic passage from the Yerushalmi will serve as an example; it is intended as a rebuke to ‘Scandal-mongers,’ and a text (Deuteronomy 1:12) is taken as a starting-point, namely, ‘How can I myself alone bear your cumbrance and your burden and your strife f’ It then continues: ‘How did our forefathers worry Moses with their cumbrances? In that they were constantly slandering him, and imputing evil Intentions to him in everything that he did. It he happened to come out of his house rather earlier than usual, it was said: " Why has he gone out so early to-day? There has no doubt been some quarrelling at homel" If, on the other hand, he went out a little later than usual, it was said: " What has been occupying him so long indoors? Assuredly he has been concocting plans to oppress the people yet morel"‘(Bernfeld, Der Talmud, p. 46). Or, to give one other example: in pointing out the evils which come from a father’s favouring one son above the others, it is said:’ This should not be done, for because of the coat of many colours which the patriarch Jacob gave his favourite son Joseph (Genesis 37:1 ff.), all Israel went down into Egypt’ (i6. p. 47).

Haggadofh flourish, as regards quality, more in the Yerushalmi than in the Babli; for in the Babylonian schools intellectual acumen reigned supreme: there was but little room for the play of the emotions or for the development of poetical imagination: these were rather the property of Palestinian soil. Therefore, although the Haggadic element is, so far as quantity is concerned, much fuller in the BaUi than in the Yerushalmi, it is, generally speaking, of a far less attractive character in ■ the former than in the latter. ‘The fact that the Haggadah is much more prominent in Babli, of which it forms, according to Weiss, more than one-third, while it constitutes only one-sixth of Yerushalmi, was due, in a sense, to the course of the development of Hebrew literature. No independent mass of Haggadoth developed in Babylon, as was the case in Palestine; and the Haggadic writings were accordingly collected in the Talmud’ (JB xii. 12). But the Haggadah, whether in the Yerushalmi or in the Babli, occupies in reality a subordinate place, for in its origin, as we have seen, the Talmud was a commentary on the Mishna, which was a collection of Halakhoth; and although the Haggadic portions are of much greater human interest, it is the Halakhic portions that form the bulk of the Talmud, and that constitute its importance as the fountain-head of Jewish belief and theology.

2. Authority of the Talmud. — Inasmuch as the Oral Law, which with its comments and explanations is what constitutes the Talmud, is regarded as of equal authority with the Written Law, it will be clear that the Talmud is regarded, at all events by orthodox Jews, as the highest and final authority on all matters of faith. It is true that in the Talmud itself the letter of Scripture is always clearly differentiated from the rest; but, in the first place, the conmients and explanations declare what Scripture means, and without this official explanation the Scriptural passage would lose much of its practical value for the Jew; and, in the second place, it is firmly believed that the oral laws preserved in the Talmud were delivered to Moses on Mount Sinai. It is therefore no exaggeration to say that the Talmud is of equal authority with Scripture. The eighth principle of the Jewish creed runs: ‘I firmly believe that the Law which we possess now is the same which has been given to Moses on Mount Sinai.’ In commenting on this in what may not unjustly be described as the official handbook for the orthodox Jewish Religion, the writer says: ‘Many explanations and details of the laws were supplemented by oral teaching; they were handed down by word of mouth from generation to generation, and only after the destruction of the second temple were they committed to writing. The latter are, nevertheless, called Oral Law, as distinguished from the Torah or Written Law, which from the first was committed to writing. Those oral laws which were revealed to Moses on Mount Sinai are called " Laws given to Moses on Mount Sinai"‘(M. Friediander, The Jewish Religion [revised and enlarged ed., 1900], p. 136). It is clear from this that the Written Law of the Bible, and the Oral Law as contained in the Talmud, are of equal authority. The Talmud is again referred to as’ the final authority in Judaism ‘by the writer of a later exposition of the Jewish faith (M. Joseph, Judaism, as Creed and Life, 1903, p. vii.). One other authoritative teacher may be quoted:’ As a document of religion the Talmud acquired that authority which was due to it as the written embodiment of the ancient tradition, and it fulfilled the task which the men of the Great Assembly set for the representatives of the tradition when they said, " Make a hedge for the Torah" {Aboth, i. 2), Those who professed Judaism felt no doubt that the Talmud was equal to the Bible as a source of instruction and decision in problems of religion, and every effort to set forth religious teachings and duties was based on it.’ And speaking of the present day, the same writer says: ‘For the majority of Jews it is still the supreme authority in religion’ (Bacher in JE xii. 26).

3. The Talmud and Christianity. — Much that is written in the Talmud was originally spoken by men who were contemporaries of Christ; men who must have seen and heard Him. It is, moreover, well known what a conflict was waged in the infant Church regarding that question of the admittance of Gentiles, the result of which was an irreconcilable breach between Jew and Gentile, and an ever-increasing antagonism between Judaism and Christianity. These facts lead to the supposition that references to Christ and Christianity should be found in the Talmud. The question as to whether such references are to be found or not is one which cannot yet be said to have been decided one way or the other. The frequent mention of the Minim is held by many to refer to Christians; others maintain that by these are meant philosophizing Jews, who were regarded as heretics. This is not the place to discuss the question; we can only refer to two works, which approach it from different points of view, and which deal very adequately with it: Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, by R. T. Herford (London, 1903), and Die religiSsen Bewegungen innerhalb des Judenthums im Zeitalter Jesu, by M. Filediander (Berlin, 1905).

W. O. E. Oesterley.

Tamar

1. A Canaanite woman, married to Er and then to his brother Onan (see Marriage, 4). Tamar became by her father-in-law himself the mother of twin sons, Perez and Zerah (Genesis 38, Ruth 4:12. 1 Chronicles 2:4. Matthew 1:3). 2. The beautiful sister of Absalom, who was violated and brutally insulted by her half-brother, Amnon (2 S13>ff). 3. A daughter of Absalom (2 Samuel 14:27). 4. See next article.

Tamar

In Ezekiel 47:19 48:28 the S.E. boundary-mark of the restored kingdom of Israel. No proposed identification has been successful, since no place of this name has been found in the region required, that is, near the S. end of the Dead Sea. It is possibly the same place that is mentioned in 1 Kings 9:18 as one of the S. fortresses built up by Solomon. Here a variant Heb. reading has Tadmor (wh. see) — a manifest error, which is perhaps borrowed from the parallel passage 2 Chronicles 8:4.

J. F. McCURDY.

Tamarisk

Tamarisk i’Sshel).— This name occurs in RV (only) three times; Genesis 21:33 AV ‘grove,’ mg. ‘tree’; 1 Samuel 22:6 AV ‘tree,’ mg. ‘grove’; 1 Samuel 31 AV ‘tree.’ The RV rendering is based upon an identification of the Heb. ‘Sshel with the Arab. ‘Othl. RVm gives’ tamarisk’ for heath of EV in Jeremiah 17 (cf. 48:6), but probably a species of juniper is intended here. There are some eight species of tamarisks in Palestine; they are most common in the Maritime Plain and the Jordan Valley. Though mostly but shrubs, some species attain to the size of large trees. They are characterized by their brittle feathery branches and minute scale-like leaves.

E. W. G. Masterman.

Tammuz

Tammuz (Ezekiel 8:14) was a Babylonian god whose worship spread into Phoenicia. The name appears to be Sumerian, Dumuzi, Tamuzu, and may mean ‘son of life.’ He was a form of the Sun-god and bridegroom of Ishtar. He was celebrated as a shepherd, cut off in early life or slain by the boar (winter). Ishtar descended to Hades to bring him back to lite. He was mourned on the second of the month Tammuz (June). His Canaanite name Adonai gave rise to the Greek Adonis, and he was later identified with the Egyptian Osiris. In Amos 8:10 and Zee 12 the mourning for ‘the only son’ may be a reference to this annual mourning, and the words of the refrain, ‘Ah me, ah me l’ (Jeremiah 22:18) may be recalled.

C. H. W. Johns.

Tanhumeth

The father (?) of Seraiah, one of the Heb. captains who joined Gedaliah at Mizpah (2 Kings 25:23, Jeremiah 40:8).

Tanis

Tanis (Judith 1:10). See Zoan.

Tanner

See Arts and Ckafts, 5.

Taphath

Daughter of Solomon and wife of Ben-abinadab (1 Kings 4:11).

Tappuah

1. A ‘son’ of Hebron (1 Chronicles 2:43). Probably the name is that of a town in the Shephglah (Joshua 15:34. It was probably to the N. of WSdy es-Sunt, but the site has not been recovered. 2. See En-tappuah. 3. One }f the towns W. of Jordan whose kings Joshua smote (Joshua 12:17). It was perhaps the same place as No. 2 above; but this is by no means certain. See also TipHSAH and Tephon.

Taralah

An unknown town of Ben3amin(Jos 18:27).

Tarea

See Tahrea.

Tares

Tares (Gr. zizania, Arab, zuwan) are certain kinds of darnel growing plentifully in cornfields. The bearded darnel (Lolium temulentum) most resembles wheat. The seeds, though often poisonous to human beings on account of parasitic growths in them, are sold as chicken’s food. When harvest approaches and the tares can be distinguished, they are carefully weeded out by hand by women and children (cf. Matthew 13:24–30).

E. W. G. Masterman.

Target

See Aemohh Arms, 2.