Temple (continued) – Tetter

Temple (continued)

The altar of burnt-ofiering, D, was, like that restored by Judas the Maccabee, of unhewn stone, and measured at the base 32 cubits by 32 (47 feet square, thus covering almost the whole of the sacred rock, see § 6 (6)), decreasing by three stages till the altar-hearth was only 24 cubits square. The priests went up by an inclined approach on the south side in accordance with Exodus 20:26. To the north of the altar was the place where the sacrificial victims were slaughtered and prepared for the altar. It was provided with rings, pillars, hooks, and tables. A layer, O, for the priests’ ablutions stood to the west of the approach to the altar.

12. The Temple building. — A few yards beyond the great altar rose the Temple itself, a glittering mass of white marble and gold. Twelve steps, corresponding to the height (12 half-cubits) of the massive and probably gold-covered stereobate on which the building stood, led up to the porch.

The porch was probably 96 cubits in height and of the same breadth at the base. The Mishna gives its height, including the 6 cubits of the podium or stereobate, as 100 cubits.

KEY TO PLAN OF HEROD’S TEMPLE AND COURTS.

a Jj c d, the surrounding balustrade (sSrSff). X Y Z, the

terrace (chel). A, Court of the Women. B B B, Court of Israel. C C C,

Court of the Priests.

D, altar of burnt-offering. E F G, porch, holy place,

and holy of holies. O, the laver. H, 1-9, Gates of the Sanctuary {Middoth, i. 4, S), viz.: 1, gate of the House Moked; 2, Corban gate; 3, gate Nitsus; 5, the gate of Nicanor, or the Beautiful Gate! 7, the water gate; 8, gate of the firstborn; 9, the fuel gate; 10, the ‘upper gate,’ wrongly called the gate of Nicanor.

E, the guardhouse Moked (=hearth}. L, the ‘northern M, edifice that was between the two gates’ (see BJ vi.ii. 7 [Niese, § 150]). Here, it is suggested, the sacrificial victims were examined by the priests, having been brought in either by the underground passage shown on the plan, or by the ramp also shown. The upper storey may have contained the important’ chamber of the councillors’ (.partiedrin) ( Ydma, 1. 1). the chamber Gazith, in which the priests on duty assembled for prayer (.Tamld, iv. end). There are not sufficient data for fixing the location of the other chambers mentioned in the Mishna. Their distribution on the plan Is purely conjectural. The real depth was doubtless, as in Solomon’s Temple (5’3), 10 cubits in the centre, but now increased to 20 cubits at the wings (so Josephus). As the plan shows, the porch outflanlced the main body of the Temple, which was 60 — the Mishna has 70 — cubits in breadth, by 18 cubits at either wing. These dimensions show that Herod’s porch resembled the pylons of an Egyptian temple. It probably tapered towards the top, and was surmounted by an Egyptian cornice with thefamiliareavetto mouIding(cf. sketch below). The entrance to the porch measured 40 cubits by 20 {Mlddoth, iii. 7), corresponding to the dimensions of ‘the holy place.’ There was no door.

The ‘great door of the house’ (20 cubits by 10) was ‘all over covered with gold,’ in front of which hung a richly embroidered Babylonian veil, while above the lintel was figured a huge golden vine (Jos. Ant. xv. xi. 3, BJ v. V. 4). The Interior area of Herod’s Temple was, for obvious reasons, the same as that of its predecessors. A hall, 61 cubits long by 20 wide, was divided between the holy place (40 by 20, but with the height increased to 40 cubits [Middoth, iv. 6]) and the most holy place (20 by 20 by 20 high). The extra cubit was occupied by a double curtain embroidered in colours, which screened off ‘the holy of holies’ (et. Midd. iv. 7 with YBmS, v.2). This is the veil o£ the Temple referred to in Matthew 27:51 and (cf. Hebrews 6:19 etc.).

Scale o/Cubi’fy,

DIAGRAMMATIC SECTION OF TEMPLE AND PORCH.

As in Solomon’s Temple, three storeys of side-chambers, prob. 30 cubits in height, ran round three sides of the main building. But by the provision of a passage-way giving access to the different storeys, and making a third outside wall necessary, the surface covered by the whole was now 96 cubits in length by 60 in breadth, not reckonuig the two wings of the porch. Over the whole length of the two holy places a second storey was raised, entirely, as it seems, for architectural effect.

The total height of the naos is uncertain. The entries by which the Mishna makes up a total of 100 cubits are not such as inspire confidence; the laws of architectural proportion suggest thatthelOO,although also given byjosephus, should be reduced to 60 cubits or SSBeet, equal to the breadth of the tiojos and lateral chambers. On the plan the lowest side chambers are intended to be 5 cubits wide and their wall 3 (both as in § 3), the passage-way 3, and the outside wall 3, giving a total width of 14 -I- 6 -I- 20 -I- 6 -H4= 60 cubits (Jos. v. V. 4; cf . DB iv. 715 for the corresponding figures of Midd. iv. 7). The result of taking the principles of proportion between the various parts as the decisive factor when Josephus and the Mishna are at variance, is exhibited in the above diagram, which combines sections through the porch and holy place.

The furniture of ‘the holy place’ remained as in former days. Before the veil stood the altar of incense; against the south wall the seven-branched golden lampstand, and opposite to it the table of shewbread (Jos. BJ V. V. 5). A special interest attaches to the two latter from the fact, known to every one, that they were among the Temple spoils carried to Rome by Titus to adorn his triumph, and are still to be seen among the sculptures of the Arch of Titus.

‘The itiost holy place’ was empty as before (Jos. ib.), save for a stone on which the high priest, who alone had access to this innermost shrine, deposited the censer of Incense on the Day of Atonement ( YBmS, v. 2).

All in all, Herod’s Temple was well worthy of a place among the architectural wonders of the world. One has but to think of the extraordinary height and strength of the outer retaining walls, parts of which still claim our admiration, and of the wealth of art and ornament lavished upon the porticoes and buildings. The artistic effect was further heightened by the succession of marble-paved terraces and courts, rising each above and within the other, from the outer court to the Temple floor. For once we may entirely credit the Jewish historian when he tells us that from a distance the whole resembled a snow-covered mountain, and that the light reflected from the gilded porch dazzled the spectator like ‘the sun’s own rays’ (Jos. BJ v. v. 6).

13. The daily Temple service in NT times. — This article may fitly close with a brief account of the principal act of Jewish worship in the days of our Lord, which centred round the daily or ‘continual’ (Heb. iamld. Exodus 29:42) burnt-offering, presented every morning and every evening, or rather mid-afternoon, throughout the year, in the name, and on behalf, of the whole community of Israel (see Exodus 29:38–42. Numbers 28). A detailed account of this service, evidently based on reliable tradition, is given in the Mishna treatise Tamtd, of which English translations will be found in Barclay’s Talmud, and in PEFSt 1885, 119 ff. (cf. also the full exposition given by SchUrer, GJ V> ii. 288-299 =‘345-357 IHJP II. i. 273-299]).

The detachment of priests on duty In the rotation of their ‘courses’ (Luke 1:8) slept in the ‘house Moked’ (K on plan). About cock-crow the priests who wished to be drawn for the morning service bathed and robed, and thereafter repaired to the chamber Gazith (M) in order to determine by lot those of their number who should ‘officiate.’ By the first lot a priest was selected to remove the ashes from the altar of burnt-oflering, and prepare the wood, etc., for the morning sacrifice. This done, ‘the presiding official said to them. Come and draw (to decide) (1) who shall slay, (2) who shall toss (the blood against the altar), (3) who shall remove the ashes from the incense altar, (4) who shall clean the lampstand, (5)-(10) who shall carry the parts of the victim to the foot of the altar [six parts are specified],

(11) who shall prepare the (meal-offering) of fine flour, (12) the baked offering (of the high priest), and (13) the wine of the drink-offering’ (Mishna, Tamld, iii. 1).

At the hour of dawn the preparations here set forth were begun, and the Temple gates thrown open. After the victim, a yearling lamb, had been slain, the incense altar prepared and the lamps trimmed, the officiating priests assembled in the chamber Gazith for a short religious service, after which there commenced the solemn acts of worship in which the tamid culminated — the offering of incense and the burning of the sacrificial victim. The priest, chosen as before by lot (Luke 1:9). entered the Temple with a censer of incense, and, while the smoke was ascending from the altar within the Holy Place, the worshippers without prostrated themselves in adoration and silent prayer. After the priestly benediction had been pronounced from the steps of the porch (.Tamld, vii. 2), the several parts of the sacrifice were thrown upon the altar and consumed. The pouring of the drink-offering was now the signal for the choir of Levites to begin the chanting of the Fsalm for the day. At intervals two priests blew on silver trumpets, at whose sound the people again prostrated themselves. With the close of the Psalm the public service was at an end, and the private sacrifices were then offered.

The order of the mid-afternoon service differed from the above only in that the incense was offered after the burning of the victim instead of before. The lamps, also, on the ‘golden candlestick,’ were lighted at the ‘evening’ service. A. R. S. Kennedy.

Temptation

The English words ‘tempt’ and ‘temptation’ are in the OT — with the exception of Mai 3", where a synonym bochan is used, — the tr. of various forms of the root nisssh, which is most frequently rendered ‘prove.’ In Genesis 22:1 RV tr. ‘God did prove Abraham.’ But RV retains ‘temptation’ for (a) God’s testing of Pharaoh’s character and disposition (Deuteronomy 4:34. RVra ‘trials’ or ‘evidences’; cf. 7:19 29:3) (6) Israel’s distrustful putting of God Himself to the proof (Deuteronomy 6:16; cf. Exodus 17:2, 7. Numbers 14:22. ps 78). In ps 95 E,v rightly keeps ‘Massah’ as a proper name, the reference being to the historic murmuring at Rephidim {Ex IT’*-; cf. Deuteronomy 33:8, Psalms 81:7).

Driver (7CC, on Deuteronomy 6:16) points out, in a valuable note, that *niss5h is a neutral word, and means to test or vrove a

Seraon, to see uj^efAer he will act in a particular way (Exodus 16:4. g 222 3:4). or whether the character he beais is well established(1 K 10:1). God thus jyroves a person, or ‘puts him to the test, to see if his fidelity or^ffection is sincere (Genesis 22:1. Exodus 247. Deuteronomy 8:2 13:3; cf. Ps 262j; and men test, or prove Jehovah when they act as if doubting whether Hia promise be true, or whether He is faithful to His revealed character (Exodus 17:2, 7, Numbers 14:22. Pa io6U; of. la 7:12).

2. The Gr. word peirasmos is the usual LXX rendering of massah. It is also ‘a neutral word,’ though in the NT it sometimes means enticement to sin (Matthew 4:1. 1 Corinthians 7:5. Revelation 2:10 etc.; cf. ‘the tempter,’ Matthew 4:3. 1 Thessalonians 3:5). In the RV it is almost always tr. ‘temptation,’ with the occasional marginal alternative ‘trial’ (James 1:2). 1 Peter 1:6) the exceptions are Acts 20:19. Revelation 3:10, where ‘trial’ -is found in the text. The Amer. RV substitutes ‘try’ or ‘make trial of (‘trial’) for ‘tempt’ (‘temptation’)’ wherever enticement to what is wrong is not evidently spoken of (see Appendix to RV, note vi.); but ‘temptation’ is retained in Matthew 6:13 11:4. where the range of the petition cannot be thus limited; cf. James 1:2.

3. In expounding the prayer ‘Bring ua not into temptation,’ and other passages in which the word has a wider meaning than enticement to sin, the difficulty is partially, but only partially, to be ascribed to the narrowing of the significance of the English word since 1611. If, as Driver thinks, ‘to tempt has, in modern English, acquired the sense of provoking or enticing a person in order that he may act in a particular way ( = Heb. hissith),’ there is no doubt that ‘tempt’ is often ‘a misleading rendering.’ Into such temptation the heavenly Father cannot bring Hia children; our knowledge of His character prevents us from tracing to Him any allurement to evil. The profound argument of St. James (1:13) is that God is ‘Himself absolutely unsusceptible to evil,’ and therefore He is ‘incapable of tempting others to evil’ (Mayor, Com., in loc.). But the difficulty is not removed when the petition is regarded as meaning ‘bring us not into trial.’ Can a Christian pray to be exempted from the testing without which sheltered innocence cannot become approved virtue? Can he ask that he may never be exposed to those trials upon the endurance of which his blessedness depends (James 1:12) The sufficient answer is that He who was ‘in all points tempted like as we are’ (Hebrews 4:15) has taught us to pray ‘after this manner.’ His own prayer in Gethsemane (Matthew 26:42), and His exhortation to His disciples (v. 41), prove, by example and by precept, that when offered in subjection to the central, all-dominating desire ‘Thy will be done,’ the petition ‘Bring us not into temptation’ is always fitting on the lips of those who know that ‘the flesh is weak.’ Having thus prayed, those who find themselves ringed round (Ja I2, peri) by temptations will be strengthened to endure joyfully. Their experience is not joyous, but grievous; nevertheless, Divine wisdom enables thera to ‘count it all joy’ as being a part of the discipline which is designed to make them ‘perfect and entire, lacking in nothing.’

On the Temptation of our Lord see Jesus CHKrsT, p. 447. J. G. Tabker.

Ten

See Numbek, § 7.

Ten Go

Ten go mKUNDMENTS.— l.The traditionalhistory of the Decalogue. — The ‘ten words’ were, according to Ex 20,proclaimed vocally by God on Mt.Sinai, and written by Him on two stones, and given to Moses (24’2 31’" 3215- 16; cf. Deuteronomy 5:22 gio- 11). When these were broken by Moses on his descent from the mount (Exodus 32:19. Deuteronomy 9:17). he was commanded to prepare two fresh stones like the first, on which God re-wrote the ‘ten words’ (Exodus 34:4, 28. Deuteronomy 10:2, 4). This is clearly the meaning of Ex. as the text now stands. But many critics think that v. 285 originally referred not to the ‘ten words’ of Exodus 20, but to the laws of 34, and that these laws were J’s version of the Decalogue. It must suffice to say here that if, as on the whole seems likely, v. 285 refers to our Decalogue, we must distinguish the command to write the covenant laws in v. 27, and the words ‘he wrote’ in v., in which case the subject of the latter will be God, as required by 34:1. The two stones were immediately placed in the ark, which had been prepared by Moses specially for that purpose (Deuteronomy 10 [probably based on JEJ). There they were believed to have permanently remained (1 Kings 8:9. Deuteronomy 10:5) until the ark was, according to Rabbinical tradition, hidden by Jeremiah, when Jerusalem was finally taken by Nebuchadrezzar.

2. The documentary history of the Decalogue. — A comparison of the Decalogue in Exodus 20 with that of Deuteronomy 5 renders it probable that both are later recensions of a much shorter original. The phrases peculiar to Deuteronomy 5 are in most cases obviously characteristic of D, and must be regarded as later expansions. Such are ‘as the Lord thy God commanded thee’ in the 4th and 5th ‘word,’ and ‘that it may go well with thee’ in the 6th. In the last commandment the first two clauses are transposed, and a more appropriate word (‘desire ‘) is used for coveting a neighbour’s wife. Here evidently we have also a later correction. Curiously enough Exodus 20, while thus generally more primitive than Deut., shows signs of an even later recension. The reason for keeping the Sabbath, God’s rest after creation, is clearly based on Genesis 2:1–3. which belongs to the post-exilic Priestly Code (P). "The question is further complicated by the fact that several phrases in what is common to Exodus 20 and Deut. are of a distinctly Deuteronomic character, as’ that is within thy gates’ in the 4th commandment, ‘that thy days may be long’ ‘upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee’ in the 6th. We see, then, that the Decalogue of Ex. is in all probability the result of a double revision (a Deuteronomic and a Priestly) of a much more simple original. It has been suggested that originally all the commandments consisted of a single clause, and that the name ‘word’ could be more naturally applied to such. In favour of this view, beyond what has been already said, it is argued that this short form would be more suitable for inscription on stone.

3. How were the ‘ten’ words ‘divided? — The question turns on the beginning and the end of the Decalogue. Are what we know as the First and Second, and again what we know as the Tenth, one or two commandments? The arrangement which treats the First and Second as one, and the Tenth as two, is that of the Massoretic Hebrew text both in Ex. and Dt., and was that of the whole Western Church from the time of St. Augustine to the Reformation, and is still that of the Roman and Lutheran Churches. Moreover, it may seem to have some support from the Deuteronomic version of the Tenth Commandment. Our present arrangement, however, is that of the early Jewish and early Christian Churches, and seems on the whole more probable in itself. A wife, being regarded as a chattel, would naturally come under the general prohibition against coveting a neighbour’s goods. If, as already suggested, the original form of the commandment was a single clause, it would have run,’ Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house’ (see 8 (X.)).

4. The contents o£ each table. — If, as suggested, the original commandments were single clauses, it is most natural to suppose that they were evenly divided between the two tables — five in each. This view is adopted without hesitation by Philo, and it is not contradicted by our Lord’s division of the Law into the love of God and the love of one’s neighbour. It would be difficult to class parents in the category of neighbour, whereas the reverence due to them was by the ancients regarded as a specially sacred obligation, and was included, by both Greeks and Romans at any rate, under the notion of piety.

5. Order of the Decalo^e. — The Hebrew texts of Exodus 20 and Dt S agree in the order — murder, adultery, theh — as the subjects of the 6th, 7th, and_8th Commandments. The LXX (best MSS) in Ex. have the order — adultery, theft, murder; in Dt. — adultery, murder, theft. This last is borne out by Romans 13:9 and by Philo, and may possibly have been original.

6. Mosaic origin of the Decalogue. — The chief difficulty arises out of the Second Commandment. There can be little doubt that from primitive times the Israelites were monolatrous, worshipping J" as their national God. But it is argued that this does not appear to have prevented them from recognizing to some extent inferior divine beings, such as those represented by teraphim, or even from representing their God under visible symbols. Thus in Judges 17:3 we find Micah making an image of Jahweh, without any disapproval by the writer. David himself had teraphim in his house (I S 19:13–16) Isaiah speaks of a pillar as a natural and suitable symbol of worship (Isaiah 19:19)) ; Hosea classes pillar, ephod, and teraphim with sacrifices as means of worship, of which Israel would be deprived for a while as a punishment (Hosea 3:4). The frequent condemnation of asheroth (sacred tree-images, AV ‘groves’) suggests that they too were common features of Semitic worship, and not confined to the worship of heathen gods. But it may reasonably be doubted whether these religious symbols were always regarded as themselves objects of worship, though tending to become so. Again, it may well have been the case that under the deteriorating influences of surrounding Semitic worship, the people, without generally worshipping heathen gods, tailed to reach the high ideal of their traditional religion and worship. We may fairly say, then, that the Decalogue in its earliest form, if not actually Mosaic, represents in all probability the earliest religious tradition of Israel.

7. Objectofthe Decalogue.— Lookingfrom a Christian point of view, we are apt to regard the Decalogue as at any rate an incomplete code of religion and morality. More probably the ‘ten words’ should be regarded as a few easily remembered rules necessary for a half-civilized agricultural people, who owed allegiance to a national God, and were required to live at peace with each other. They stand evidently in close relation to the Book of the Covenant (Ex 21-23), of which they may be regarded as either a summary or the kernel. With one exception (the Fifth, see below, 8 (v.)) they are, like most rules given to children, of a negative character — ‘thou shalt not,’ etc.

8. Interpretation of the Decalogue. — There are a few obscure phrases, or other matters which call for comment.

(i.) ‘before me* may mean either’ in my presence,’ condemningthe eclectic woiship of many gods, or ‘in preference to me.’ Neither interpretation would necessarily exclude the belief that other gods were suitable objects of worship for other peoples (cf. Judges 11:24).

(ii.) ‘the water under the earth.’ The Israelites conceived of the sea as extending under the whole land (hence the springs). This, being in their view the larger part, might be used to express the whole. Fish and other marine animals are, of course, intended.

‘unto thousands,’ better ‘a thousand generations,’ as in RVm. ‘The punishment by God of children for the faults of parents was felt to be a moral difficulty, and was denied by Ezekiel (ch. 18). Similar action by judicial authorities was forbidden by Deut. (24) cf . 2 K \f). But the words show that if evil actions influence for evil the descendants of the evil-doer either by heredity or by imitation,the influence of good actions for good is far more potent.

(iii.) "Thou ... in vain,’ i.e. ‘for falsehood.’ This may mean ‘Thou shalt not perjure thyself’ or ‘Thou shalt not swear and then not keep thy oath.’ The latter seems to be the current Jewish interpretation (see Matthew 5:33). Philo takes it in both senses.

(iv.) ‘within thy gates,’ i.e. ‘thy cities’ (see 2).

‘for in six days,’ etc. We find in OT three distinct reasons for the observance of the Sabbath. (1) The oldest is that of the Book of the Covenant in Exodus 23:12. ‘that thine ox and thine ass may have rest, and the son of thine handmaid and the stranger may be refreshed.’ In Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 the rest of the domestic animals and servants appeare as part of the inj unction itself. (2) In Dt5 there is added as a secondary purpose, ‘that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou’; whereas the chief purpose of the observance is as a commemoration of the Exodus. (3) Exodus 20, revised after the Exile at or after the time that the Priestly Code was published, bases the observance on the Sabbatical rest of God after the Creation (Genesis 2:1–3 P).

(v.) ‘Honour thy Father,’ etc. It is not improbable that this coramandment has been modified in form, and was originally negative like all the rest, and referred hke them to a prohibited action rather than to a correct feeling, as, very {)0S3ibly, ‘Thou shalt not smite,’ etc. (cf . Exodus 21:1 ")• At a ater time such an outrage would have been hardly contemplated, and would naturally have given way to the present commandment. The word ‘honour’ seems, according to current Jewish teaching (see Lightfoot on Matthew 15:5). to have specially included feeding and clothing, and Christ assumes rather than inculcates as new this application of the commandment. The Rabbinical teachera had encouragedmen in evading a recognized law by their quibbles.

(x.) ‘Thou shalt not . . . house.*- Deut. transposes the firat two clauses, and reads’ desire’ with wife. The teaching of Exodus 20 is, beyond question, relatively the earliest. The wife was originally regarded as one of the chattels, though undoubtedly the most important chattel, of the house, or general establishment.

On the Decalogue in the NT see art. Law (in nt).

F. H. Woods.

Tent

Apart from the traditions of the patriarchs as ‘quiet’ men, ‘dwelling in tents* (Genesis 25:27 RVm), the settled Hebrews preserved a reminder of their nomad ancestry in such phrases as’ going to one’s tent’ for to ‘go home’ (Judges 19:9), and in the recurring call, ‘to thy tents (i.e. to your hornes), O Israel’ (1 Kings 12:16 etc.). For an interesting case of adherence to the ‘nomadic ideal’ on religious grounds, see Rechabites.

The Hebrew tent, even in later days, cannot have differed much from the simple Bedouin tent of to-day, made by sewing together strips of the native goats’ hair cloth (cf. Song of Songs 1:5 ‘I am black as the tents of Kedar’). These ‘curtains’ (Jeremiah 4:20, Exodus 26:2 and oft.) are held up by poles, generally 9 in number, arranged in three rows of three, and 6-7 ft. high, which are kept in position by ropes — the ‘cords’ of EV, and the ‘tent-cord’ of Job 4:21 RV — attached to ‘stakes’ or ‘tent-pins’ driven into the ground by a mallet (Judges 4:21). The larger the tent, the longer the cords and the stronger the stakes, according to the figure. Isaiah 54:2. The tent, then as now, was probably divided into two parts by hanging a curtain from the three middle poles along the length of the tent — the front division open and free to all, the back closed and reserved for the women and the privacy of domestic life (Judges 15:1, Song of Songs 3:4) cf. Genesis 18:9 f.).

In time of war we read both of booths (2 Samuel 11:11, so RV rightly for AV ‘tents’) and of tents (2 Kings 7:7, Jeremiah 37:10). The Assyrian sculptures represent the soldiers’ tents as conical in shape, supported by a central pole with two arms. On the famous bronze sheathing of the palace gates at Balawat, representing every detail of the conduct of war, the royal pavilion (1 Kings 20:12, 16) is frequently represented. It was rectangular in shape, with ornamental wooden pillars with floral capitals at the four corners. The walls were probably of linen, and the roof evidently of tapestry or other rich material edged with tassels (see the plates in Billerbeck’s Die Palasttore Salmanassars II., 1908).

In early times a special tent was pitched for a newly wedded pair (Psalms 19:5, Joel 2:16) cf. 2 S as is still the custom among the Arabs. The canopy under which Jewish couples are married at the present day still retains the name, as it is a survival of the ancient chuppah or bridal tent.

Priscilla and Aquila, as well as the Apostle Paul, were tentmakera (Acts 18:2 f.). See Spinning and.Weavinq, §§1, 4 (c). For the t6nt of meeting (RV) see Tabernacle.

A. R. S. Kennedy.

Tephon

One of the towns in Judsa fortified by Bacchides (1 Maccabees 9:50). Tephon was probably an old Tappuah ; but whether it was Tappuah 1 or 2, or Beth-tappuah, is uncertain.

Terah

The father of Abraham, Nahor, and Haran (Genesis 11:24–32, 1 Chronicles 1:26, Luke 3:34). Along with his three sons he is said to have migrated from Ur of the Chaldees to Haran, where he died. In Joshua 24:2 it is said that he ‘served other gods’ — a statement which gave rise to some fanciful Jewish haggOdSth about Terah as a mofccrof idols. 2. A station of the Israelites (Nu33"-28).

Teraph

Teraph m.— SeelMAGEs; IsRAEi.,p.412i’; alsop.569".

Terebinth

Terebinth does not occur at all in AV, and only thrice in RV, being substituted in Isaiah 6:13 for ‘teil tree,’ in Hosea 4:13 for ‘elm,’ and in Sirach 24:16 for ‘turpentine tree.’ Strong reasons, however, can be urged for rendering by ‘terebinth’ in a great many instances where EV has ‘oak’ (see Oak). The terebinth or turpentine tree (Sirach 24:16) — Pistacia terebinthus, the butm of the Arabs — is one of the most imposing trees in Palestine. In almost every locality where it is allowed to attain its full growth — 30 to 40 feet high — it is associated with a sacred tomb or grove: many such groves are still deeply venerated in Galilee. Dwarfed trees occur everywhere among the oak brushwood. The tree has pinnate, lancet-shaped leaves and small reddish clusters like immature grape clusters; it is also often covered with curious red galls — like pieces of coral. The dark overhanging foliage affords a grateful shade in summer, but in autumn the leaves change colour and fall off. Cf. Mambe. E. W. G. Mastekman.

Teresh

A chamberlain of Ahasuerus (Esther 2:21) called in Ad. Est. 12’ Tharra.

Tertius

St. Paul’s amanuensis who wrote Romans and added a personal salutation (16"). It was the Apostle’s custom to employ a scribe (no doubt dictating shorthand notes, a common practice), but to add a short autograph himself. The autographs probably are: Romans 16:25–27, 1 Corinthians 16:21–24 (expressly), 2 Corinthians 13; Gal 6 (expressly), Ephesians 6:23 f.; Philippians 4:21–23. Colossians 4:18 (expressly), 1 Thessalonians 5:25–28, 2 Thessalonians 3:17 f. (expressly). In the Pa.storal Epistles and Philemon, which are personal letters, the presence of autograph passages is more uncertain.

A. J. Maclean.

Tertullus

This name (a diminutive of Terlius) is that of the advocate hired by the Jews to speak for them against St. Paul before Felix (Acts 24:1). From his name we should judge him to be a Roman; probably he was not a Jew. It has been conjectured (Dean Milman) that his speech is a translation from the Latin, though Greek was allowed in the law courts. It is a gross piece of flattery, for the Jews were in constant opposition to Felix. It accuses St. Paul of stirring up disturbances, of being the ringleader of an unlawful sect, and of profaning the Temple (cf. the reply in 25:8).

A. J. Maclean.

Testament

The word is not found in the OT. In the text of the RV of the NT it occurs only twice (He 9i«‘-), and is used to translate the Gr. word OiathikS, elsewhere rendered’ covenant’ (with ‘testament’ in the margin). In Hebrews 9:15–20 diathdkS is three times translated’ covenant,’ and twice ‘testament.’ An indication of the difficulty involved in its interpretation is given in the marginal note: ‘The Greek word here used signifies both covenant and testament.’

In classical Greek diathekl means ‘a testamentary disposition,’ and synthikS ‘a covenant.’ The latter word connotes an agreement between two persons regarded as being on an equal footing (syn-) ; hence it is unsuitable as a designation of God’s gracious covenants with men. The LXX therefore use diathikl as the equivalent of the Heb. word for ‘covenant’ (berUh), its most frequent application being to the Divine covenants, which are not matters of mutual arrangement between God and His people, but are rather ‘analogous to the disposition of property by testament.’ In the LXX diathSk^ was extended to covenants between man and man, but Westcott says: ‘There is not the least trace of the meaning "testament" in the Greek Old Test. Scriptures, and the idea of a "testament" was indeed foreign to the Jews till the time of the Herods’ (Com. on Hebrews, Additional Note on 9:16).

In the NT ‘covenant’ is unquestionably the correct translation of diatheke when it occurs ‘in strictly Biblical and Hebraic surroundings’ [see Covenant]. But, as Ramsay has pointed out, there was a development in the meaning of the word after the publication of the LXX. This development was ‘partly in the line of natural growth in Greek will-making, . . . partly in the way of assimilation of Roman ideas on wills’ (Hist. Com. on Galatians, p. 360). Therefore the question which the interpreter must ask is, ‘What ideas did the word convey to the first readers of the NT writings? ‘

The Revisers’ preference for ‘testament’ in Hebrews 9:16 f. is strongly confirmed by the fact that ‘the Roman will . . . appeared in the East as a document which had no standing and no meaning until after the testator’s death, and was revocable by him at pleasure.’ But whilst the Epistle to the Hebrews was written to those who knew only the Roman will, the Epistle to the Galatians was written at a time when in Hellenized Asia Minor ‘irrevocability was a characteristic feature’ of Greek will-making. The Galatian will had to do primarily with the appointment of an heir; no second will could invalidate it or ‘add essentially novel conditions.’ Such a will furnished St. Paul (3:15) with an analogy; like God’s word, it was ‘irrevocable.’ It might be supplemented in details, but ‘in essence the second will must confirm the original will’ (Ramsay, op. cit. p. 349 ff.).

In the NT, lestamentum is the uniform Lat. tr. of diathlkl. Frequently, therefore, it means ‘covenant’ (Luke 1:72, Acts 7:8, Romans 11:27 etc.). This use of the Latin word is the explanation of the fact that, as early as the second cent, of our era, the books of the Old and New Covenants were spoken of as the Old and New Testaments. J. G. Tasker.

Testaments of Twelve Patriarchs

See Apocalyptic Literature, 5.

Testimony

See Ark, 1; Tabernacle, 7 (a); Witness; and, for 2 Kings 11:12, Ornaments, 4.

Teth

The ninth letter of the Heb. alphabet, and as such employed in the 119th Psalm to designate the 9th part, each verse of which begins with this letter.

Tetrarch

The transliteration of a Gr. word (.tetrarches) whose literal meaning is ‘the ruler of a fourth part.’ As a title it lost its strict etymological force, and was used of ‘a petty prince,’ or ‘the ruler of a district.’ In the NT ‘Herod the tetrarch’ is Herod Antipas, son of Herod the Great; he ruled over Galilee and Persea (Matthew 14:1. Luke 3:1, 19 9:7, Acts 13:1), and is popularly styled ‘king’ (Mark 6:14 ff.; Matthew 14:9). Two other tetrarchs are mentioned in Luke 3:1; viz., Herod Philip, the brother of Antipas, who ruled over the Ituraean and Trachonitic territory; and Lysanias, who was Tetrarch of Abilene ‘in the fifteenth year of Tiberius’ (see SchOreb, HJP i. ii., App. 1). J. G. Tasker.

Tetter

See Medicine, p. 600".