Tongues, Confusion of – Travail

Tongues, Confusion of

The belief that the world, after the Flood, was re-populated by the progeny of a single family, speaking one language, is reconciled in the Bible with the existing diversity of tongues by a story which relates how the descendants of Noah, in the course of their wanderings, settled in the plain of Shinar, or Babylonia, and there built of brick a city, and a tower high enough to reach heaven, as a monument to preserve their fame, and as a centre of social cohesion and union. But the Lord discerned their ambitious purposes, and, after consulting with the Divine beings who constituted His council and court (cf. Genesis 1 3:22), frustrated their design by confounding their speech, so that concerted action was no longer possible for them. In consequence, the name of the city was called Babel (see below), and its builders were compelled to disperse over the face of the earth (Genesis 11:1–9) .

The story belongs to a class of narratives (of which there are several in the Bible) intended to explain the origin of various institutions, or usages, the existence of which excited the curiosity of a primitive race. Among these was the prevalence in the world of different languages, which contributed so greatly to produce between the various peoples, who were thus unintelligible to one another, feelings of mutual suspicion and fear (cf. Deuteronomy 28:49, Isaiah 28:11 33:19, Jeremiah 5:15). The particular explanation furnished was doubtless suggested partly by the name of the city of Babel, or Babylon (which, though really meaning ‘gate of God,’ was by a popular etymology connected with the Heb. word blUal, ‘to confuse ‘), and partly by the presence, at or near Babylon, of the ruins of some great tower, which looked as though It had originally been designed as a means to scale heaven. Two such towers, or ziqqurats, were the temple of Merodach (or Marduk) in Babylon (supposed to be beneath the mound of Babil), and the temple of Nebo in Borsippa (the ruins of which form the mound of Bits Nimroud); and knowledge of one or other of these may have helped to shape the narrative. The character of the narrative makes it Impossible to consider it as real history: it bears on its surface manifest evidence that it Is a creation of primitive fancy. The question whether the various languages of mankind have really been derived from one common tongue cannot be separated from the question (into which it is unnecessary to enter here) whether the various races of men have sprung from a single stock, i.e.’ whether man appeared originally on the globe at one centre or at many centres." It may be said, however, that philological research has proved that the numerous existing languages are members of a comparatively small number of families of speech (such as the Indo- European, the Semitic, etc.); but that between these families of speech there is so great a difference of structure, that their descent from one original tongue seems highly improbable. At the same time, all languages must have arisen from certain faculties and instincts common to human nature; and the presence, in languages belonging to distinct families, of onomatopoetic, or imitative, words serves to illustrate the essential similarity of human tendencies in the sphere of speech all the world over. G. W. Wade.

Tongues, Gift of

1 . In NT we read of ‘speaking with tongues’ or ‘in a tongue’ as a remarkable sign of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit; but the exact meaningof the phenomenon described heis been much disputed. We may take the passages in the chronological order of writing. — (a) The Epistles. In 1 Co 12-14, among the charismata or (spiritual) gifts are ‘divers kinds of tongues’ and "the interpretation of tongues’ (12><i- ">). Yet St. Paul, who possessed the gift himself (14’*), considers it to be of little importance as compared with prophecy. In itself it is addressed to God, and unless interpreted it is useless to those assembled; it is a sign to believers, but will not edify, but rather excite the ridicule of, unlearned persons or heathens (1423). whatever the gift was, speaking with tongues was at Corinth ordinarily unintelligible to the hearers, and sometimes even to the speaker (14»), though the English reader must note that the word ‘unknown’ in AV is an interpolation. The gift was not to be forbidden, but everything was to be done decently and in order (14"). — Indications of the gift are thought to be found in 1 Th 6", Romans 8:15, 26. Galatians 4:6, Ephesians 5:19. but. not at all in the Pastoral, Petrine, or Johannine Epistles. It seems to have belonged to the infancy of the Church (1 Corinthians 13:8: ‘Tongues . . . shall cease’). [Iren^us, apparently speaking at second hand, says that the gift existed in the 2nd cent.; but this is very doubtful. Chrysostom says that it was non-existent in the 4th century.] — (6) Acts. At Pentecost, in addition to the ‘mighty wind’ and the "‘tongues parting asunder like as of flre," we read that the assembled disciples spoke’ with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance" (2:4). The multitudes from many countries, coming together, heard them speak in their tongues the mighty works of God (2:11), while some thought that they were drunken (2:13) cf. 1 Corinthians 14:23). We read again of the gift in the conversion of Cornelius and his household (10) — St. Peter expressly says that it was the same as at Pentecost (11) — and at Ephesus (19)) and probably the same Is intended in the story of the Samaritan converts (8 f.: ‘Simon saw that ... the Holy Ghost was given"). — (c) In the Appendix to Mark (which, even if Markan, is comparatively late) we have the promise that the disciples "shall speak with [new] tongues" (16:17: " new" is probably not of the best text).

2. Meaning of the gift. — Relying chiefly on the passages of Acts, most of the Fathers (as Origen, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus) understand the gift as being for purposes of evangelization, as if the disciples received a miraculous endowment of foreign languages to enable them to preach; Gregory of Nyssa and others take the gift as a miracle of hearing, the disciples speaking in their own language, but the people understanding their speech each in his own tongue. This view starts with the doubtless true idea that " tongue" means " language" here. But Acts says nothing, about preaching; the gift is never found in NT in connexion with evangelization; the passages in 1 Cor., where the utterances are often unintelligible even to the utterer, are clearly repugnant to this interpretation, and we have no proof that the Apostles ever preached in any language but Greek and Aramaic, even to the ‘barbarous" heathen, such as the Lycaonians or Maltese. Indeed, Paul and Barnabas clearly did not know Lycaonian (Acts 14:11, 14). Peter probably did not know Greek well enough to preach in it, for Mark was his’ interpreter’ (Papias, Irenaeus). We cannot, then, follow the majority of the Fathers in their interpretation. Had it been the true one, St. Paul would have encouraged the Corinthians to use the gift to the utmost.

Unfortunately, we do not know how the earlier 2nd cent. Fathers understood the matter; but Tertullian apparently judged the gift to be an ecstatic utterance of praise (adv. Marc. v. 8). This is much more probable than the other view. At Pentecost the disciples spoke the ‘mighty works of God." All the NT passages either suggest or agree with the idea of worship. This does not, indeed, exhaust all our difficulties; but perhaps the following considerations may solve at least some of them. — (a) The disciples, at a critical period of the Church, were in a state of intense excitement. But St. Paul’s words do not mean that their utterances were mere gibberish; on the contrary, they were capable of interpretation if one who had that gift were present. And at Pentecost they were, as a matter of fact, understood. — (b) It has been suggested that we are to understand " tongues," not as ‘languages," but as’ poetic or symbolic speech," not readily understood by the unlearned. But this view does not satisfy Acts 2, though in itself it may be true; in a word, this is an insufficient explanation. — (c) The languages required by Acts 2 are actually only two — Greek and Aramaic. For those present at Pentecost were Jews; the list in v. 9 ff. is of countries, not of languages. All the Jews of these countries spoke either Greek or Aramstic. This is a difficulty in interpreting the narrative, which gives us the impression of a large number of different languages. But probably what is intended is a large number of dialects of Greek and Aramaic, especially of the latter; it would be as though a Somerset man heard one who habitually spoke broad Scots praising God in the Somerset dialect. And what would strike the pilgrim Jews present was that the speakers at Pentecost were mainly those who themselves spoke an uncouth Aramaic dialect, that of Galilee (Matthew 26:73).) — (d) This consideration may lead us a step further. We may recognize in the Pentecostal wonder a stirring of memory, a recalling of utterances previously heard by the disciples at former feasts when a polyglot multitude of Jews (polyglot at least in dialects) was assembled, the speakers uttering what they had unconsciously already taken into their memories. This would account for their words being so readily understood; some of the speakers would be praising God in one dialect, some in another. — (e) Something of this sort may have happened at Corinth, one of the most cosmopolitan of cities. Here the possession of the gift was not confined to those of Jewish birth. But naturally the resident Christian community at Corinth would ordinarily not understand the strange dialects given utterance to. The case is not the same as that of Pentecost, when many different peoples were gathered together.

To sum up, it seems probable that the gift of tongues was an ecstatic utterance of praise, not only in poetic and symbolic speech, but also in languages or dialects not ordinarily spoken by those who had the gift; a power given at a time of great enthusiasm and excitement, at a critical period of the world’s history, but not jneant to be a permanent gift tor the Church, and not ranking so high as other charismata, especially not so high as prophecy. That it survived the Apostolic age is hardly probable. A. J. Maclean.

Tooi

Tooi iS. — See Arts and Cbafts.

Toparchy

A compound word from Greek topos (place) and orcftS (rule), found only in 1 Maccabees 11:28 (cf. 1 Maccabees 10 11:34) among the sacred books, but very many times in the papyri of Egypt (with reference to that country). It means a very small administrative division of territory. Three toparchies were detached from Samaria and added to Judsea in Maccabsean times.

A. SOUTEE.

Topaz

See Jewels and Pkecious Stones.

Tophel

See Dizahab.

Topheth

A term of uncertain etymology, designating some locality in one of the valleys near Jerusalem,|very possibly in the Valley of Hinnom (2 Kings 23:10). or near the point of juncture of the three valleys of Jerusalem. It was there that the Jews under Ahab and Manasseh performed the rites of human sacrifice (Jeremiah 7:31–32), offering children to Baal, Molech, and other heathen gods. It was defiled by Josiah as a part of his religious reformation, and so came to be an abominable place where the refuse was destroyed, and thus a synonym of Gehenna (wh. see).

Shailer Mathews.

Torah

iSee Law (in OT), §§ 2. 3.

Torch

See Lamp, § 1; Lantebn.

Tormah

In the margin of Judges 9:31 ‘in Tormah’ Is given as an alternative rendering of the Hebrew word translated ‘craftily’ (AV ‘privily’). Some commentators have suggested that Tormah is a corruption of Arumah (v.").

Tortoise

Tortoise (.tsm, Leviticus 11:29) Several kinds of land and water tortoises are common in the Holy Land, but here the reference is probably to some kind of lizard. See Lizard. E. W. G. Masteeman.

Tou

King of Hamath on the Orontes, who sent an embassy to congratulate David on his defeat of Hadadezer (1 Chronicles 18:9 f.). In the parallel passage, 288, the name appears as Toi, which, however, is less probable philologically.

Tower

See Fortification and Siegecbaft, §§2.4. For ‘Tower of Babel’ see Tongues [Confusion of].

Town

See City, Village.

Town Clerk

In Graco-Asiatic cities under the Roman Empire the grammateus (tr. ‘town clerk’) was responsible for the form of decrees presented to the popular assembly. They were first approved by the senate and then sent to the assembly, which formally passed them. At Ephesus (Acts 19:35) the clerk feared that he would have to account to the Roman governor for the irregularly constituted assembly.

A. Souter.

Trachonitis

Mentioned in Luke 3:1 as the name of the tetrarchy of Philip. It is to be identified with the lava region S.E. of Damascus, known to the Greeks as Trachon, and to modern Arabs as the LejS. An inscription discovered by Burckhardt in 1810 at Miamiyeh dispels all doubt as to the identity of this region with Trachon. It has ever been regarded as a refuge from invaders. Josephus frequently speaks of the inhabitants of these parts as predatory (AnJ. XVI. ix. l, x. 1). Philip’s rule, on the other hand, he describes as just and gentle (.lb. XVIII. iv. 6). Tra’jan in a.d. 106 transformed ‘Trachonitis into a new province, which he called’ Arabia,’ making Bosra its capital. Geobgb L. Robinson.

Trade and Commerce

The processes by which international trade is carried on consist in the interchange of commodities or of services, and these latter may be positive or negative in character: they may be represented by actual performance or by the withdrawal of opposition. Such procedure as the occupation of passes or other natural channels for traffic, with the view of demanding tolls of the traders who use them, is the subject of few allusions in the OT; yet the location of the Israelitish kingdoms was such as to favour the production of revenue in this way. The most practicable routes both from the North and from the East to the Red Sea lay through their country; and the land route from Egypt to Asia either traversed or skirted it. United under a powerful sovereign, Palestine could levy large contributions on the traffic of the surrounding nations; and this appears to have been done in Solomon’s time.

1. The products of Canaan were in the main agricultural, horticultural, and pastoral, and some of these could be exported. Oil was sent to Egypt (Hosea 12:1) and Phoenicia (Ezekiel 27:17) wine to the latter country (2 Chronicles 2:10), as well as wheat (Ezk. I.e., 2 Ch. I.e.), barley (2 Ch. I.e.), oak timber (Ezekiel 27:6) from Bashan, honey (or dibs) and balsam (Ezekiel 27:17), and an unknown substance called pannag (Ezk. I.e.). Other possible objects for exportation were sand for glass manufacture, bitumen, the purple-fish, wool, and leather; and certain fruits and spices (Genesis 43:11).

2. Of national industries we hear very little; nor does it appear that any articles of Israelitish workmanship acquired fame in foreign lands. A few notices can, however, be collected, which indicate the existence of manufactures, and of a sort that may have been exported. The housewife of Proverbs 31 not only makes her own clothes, but sells some to the ‘Canaanite’ or pedlar; and in 1 Chronicles 4:21 there is mention of a Jewish family that owned a byssus-f actory. Further, there are not a few references to potteries, and to work done in brass, the precious metals, stone and wood. The iconoclastic attitude which prevails in the OT causes the plastic arts to be ordinarily referred to with scorn and indignation; but of their existence in Palestine there is no doubt, and the considerable market that existed for images probably led to no small development. That any of these manufactures was exported is not attested by any evidence that has as yet come to light; but there is apparently no a priori reason against such a supposition.

Prior to the settlement of the country by the exertions of the kings, trade can have been carried on by Israelites only to an insignificant extent. In Saul’s days, according to 1 Samuel 13:19, there were no Israelitish smiths — a fact there explained as due to the tyrannical precautions of the Philistines; but perhaps we should infer that the Israelites had as yet learned no crafts, since even in Solomon’s time we find that artificers had to be imported for the building of the royal edifices. The place of industry had to be supplied by raiding, and Saul himself is praised for having stripped the finery of his enemies’ women to put it on his own (2 Samuel 1:24). The heroic David fights with rustic weapons and without armour. The possibility of the peaceful progress which is the preliminary condition of trade would seem to have been provided by the first two kings.

3. We have unfortunately no account of the financial system which must have been introduced with the foundation of the kingdom, though the prophecy of Samuel (1 Samuel 8:11–17) suggests that the king claimed a tithe of all produce, but in theory had a right to both the persons and possessions of his subjects. Before the end of David’s reign we hear of permanent officials appointed by the Ising; and the need for steady sources of revenue whence the stipends of such officials could be supplied , is sufficient to cause the erection of an elaborate financial system, with surveys and assessments, tax-gatherers and clerks. The ‘numbering of the people,’ which lived on in popular tradition as an iniquity earning condign punishment, doubtless belonged to the commencements of orderly government. For Solomon’s time we have something like the fragment of a budget (1 Kings 10:14, 15), according to which it would appear that the king had three sources of revenue — one not further specified, but probably a land-tax; another, tribute from subject States, governed by satraps; and a third connected with commerce, and probably equivalent to excise and customs. The text implies that these various forms of revenue were paid in gold, which was then stored by the king in the form of shields and vessels.

This gold must all have been imported, as there are no mines in Palestine; and indeed we are told that it came, with other produce as well as silver, from the mysterious Ophir and Tarshish; and that the enterprise was a joint venture of Solomon and the king of Tyre, the latter probably supplying the vessels, the former the produce which was exchanged for these goods, unless indeed the gold was procured by raiding. If it was obtained in exchange for commodities, we must suppose either that the latter were identical with those of which we afterwards read in Ezekiel, or that the commodities to be exchanged were all supplied by the Phoenicians, the service by which the Israelites earned their share being that of giving the former access to the harbour of Ezion-geber. In favour of the latter supposition, it hEis been pointed out that the commodities known to have been exported from Palestine at one time, or another were ill-suited for conveyance on lengthy voyages, and unlikely to be required in the countries where the gold was procured. There is in the OT no allusion to the practice of coining metal, and where sums of money are mentioned they are given in silver ; the effect, however, of the quantities of gold brought into Palestine in Solomon’s time was not, according to the historian, to appreciate silver, as might have been expected, but to depreciate it, and render it unfashionable. Yet the notice of prices in the time of Solomon (1 Kings 10:29) suggests that silver was by no means valueless, whatever weight we assign to the shekel of the time. While it is clear that all silver in use must have come in by importation, the notices in the OT of transactions in which it would probably be employed are too scanty to permit of even a guess as to the amount in use; and though it is likely that (as in Eastern countries to this day) foreign coins were largely in circulation, there is little authority for this supposition.

4. If little is known of Israelitish exports, many objects are mentioned in the OT which were certainly imported from foreign countries. These were largely objects of luxury, especially in the way of clothes or stuffs; the material called ‘etun (Proverbs 7:16 RV ‘yam’) was imported from Egypt; the ivory, to which reference is frequently made during the period of the kingdom, from Ethiopia, through Egypt or Arabia; and the gems from one or other of these countries. Various objects are mentioned in connexion with Solomon’s enterprises, as newly introduced into Palestine. For later (Talmudic) times a list of 118 articles has been drawn iip which came from foreign countries into the Palestinian market; this list contains many foods and food-stuffs, materials for wearing apparel, and domestic utensils. We should rather gather that in pre-exilic times food was not ordinarily imported, except in times of famine. Imports of raw materials must have been considerable as soon as the people began to settle in towns; for there is no native iron, and little native wood, and these as well as otiier materials would be required for even the simplest manufactures. Probably, in the case of instruments, the more valuable and elaborate sort came from abroad, while the poorer classes had to content themselves with home-made articles. The finds that have hitherto been made of Israelitish utensils are insufficient to determine this point. Among the more important imports in Biblical times were horses, which seem to have been procured regularly from Egypt. Of the slave-trade there are very few notices in the OT, and it may be that the reduction of the aboriginal population by the Israelites to serfs, and the almost continuous warfare leading to the constant capture of prisoners, rendered the importation of slaves ordinarily unnecessary. According to Joel (3:4–7), the Phoenicians acted as dealers, purchasing prisoners of war (in this case Jews), and exporting them to foreign countries. The same may have been the fate of those persons who, for non-payment of debt, were assigned to their creditors (2 Kings 4:1).

S.Persons engaged in commerce. -The words used in the OT for merchants are such as signify primarily ‘traveller’ (1 Kings 10:15 RV ‘chapmen,’ ‘merchants,’ ‘traffic’), and convey the ideas of spying and making circuits. The use of the word ‘Canaanite’ for pedlar has been noticed. In Jeremiah 37:16 there is an allusion to a place in Jerusalem called ‘the booths,’ but references to shop-keeping are rare before the Exile. In Nehemiah’s time different classes of dealers had their locations in Jerusalem— goldsmiths and grocers (3), fishmongers (13) but most articles of general consumption seem to have been brought in day by day by foreigners and others (10 and 13:20). and sold in the streets. The distinction between wholesale and retail dealers perhaps first occurs in the Apocrypha (Sirach 26:20). It is worth observing that in the prophetic denunciations of luxury we miss allusions to the shops or stores in which such objects might be supposed to be offered for sale (Isaiah 3:18–24). Moreover, the verse of Ezk. (7:12) ‘let not the buyer rejoice nor the seller mourn’ suggests that the latter operation was not ordinarily thought of as it is in communities a large portion of which lives by trade, but rather as a humiliation required at times by stern necessity; and there are few allusions to trade in the codes embodied in the Pentateuch, though such are not absolutely wanting. Perhaps, then, we are justified in concluding that the practice of trade was in pre-exilic times largely in the hands of itinerant foreigners; and it is only in NT times that merchandise is regarded as an occupation as normal as agriculture (Matthew 22:5). To the cumbrous process of bargaining there is an allusion in Proverbs 20:14.

Allusions to the corn-trade are rather more common than to any other business, and to certain iniquities connected with it — probably, in the main, forms of the practice by which corn was withdrawn from the market in the hope of selling it at famine prices: this at least seems to be the reference in Proverbs 11:26, though Sirach (34) seems to have interpreted the passage merely of liberality and stinginess. In Amos 9:4–8 the reference is more distinct, and implies both the offence mentioned above and the use of deceitful measures, a wrong also condemned by Micah in a similar context (6:10). The interpretation of these passages must remain obscure until more light is thrown on land-tenure in Israel, and the process by which the king’s_share in the produce was collected.

The foreign commerce conducted in king Solomon’s time is represented in his biography as a venture of his own, whence the goods brought home were his own possessions; and the same holds good of commerce in the time of Jehoshaphat (1 Kings 22:49, 50). There is no evidence that Israelitish commerce was conducted on any other principle before the Exile, after which isolated individuals doubtless endeavoured to earn their livelihood by trade ventures. The foreign commerce of which we occasionally hear in the OT was also conducted by communities (e.g. On 37), to be compared with the tribes whom we find at the commencement of Islam engaged in joint enterprises of a similar kind. In 1 Kings 20:34 there appears to be a reference to a practice by which sovereigns obtained the right to the possession of bazaars in each other’s capitals — the nearest approach to a commercial treaty that we find in this literature. But at such times as the condition of the Israelitish cities allowed of the purchase of luxuries — i.e. after successful campaigns or long spells of peace, permitting of accumulations of produce — it is probable that the arrival and residence of foreign merchants were facilitated by the practice of ‘protection,’ a citizen rendering himself responsible for the foreign visitors, and making their interests his own — doubtless in most cases for a consideration. The spirit of the Mosaic legislation (like that of Plato’s and Aristotle’s theories) is against such intermixing with foreigners; and except for forces such as only powerful chieftains could collect, journeys whether on sea or land were dangerous. Of an expedient for commerce like the Arabian months of sacred truce the OT contains no hint.

6. The chief passage in the OT dealing with commerce is Ezekiel’a prophecy against Tyre, in which the chief Tyrian wares are enumerated, and the countries whence the Tyrians imported them (ch. 27). That chapter would seem to be based on some statistical account of Tyre, similar to those which at a somewhat later date were made out concerning the Greek States. In a prophecy inserted in the Book of Isaiah (ch. 23) Tyre is also described as the great mart of the time, serving, it would seem, as the chief exchange and centre of distribution tor goods of all kinds. Ezekiel 26:2 is sometimes interpreted as implying that Jerusalem was a competitor with Tyre for the trade of the world, but perhaps it means only that the taking of any great city led to the Tyrian merchants obtaining the spoil at low prices.

7. Trade-routes. — Palestine has no internal waterways, and goods brought to it from other countries had to reach It either by sea or across desert. A system of roads leading from Arabia, Egypt, and Mesopotamia appears to have converged at Sela or Petra, whence two branches spread northwards, to Gaza and to the eastern shore of the Dead Sea, continuing northwards on the left bank of the Jordan. From Gaza and Acre roads met in the plain of Esdraelon, the former going through the depressions of Judaea and Samaria. From the plain of Esdraelon a road led to Damascus, touching the N. W. bank of the Sea of Galilee. When Jerusalem became the capital of the country, goods were brought thither, probably by the same routes as were in use till the construction of the railways; but it is uncertain when Joppa first became the port of Jerusalem, for the statement in 2 Chronicles 2:15 that Joppa was so used in Solomon’s time is not found in the authentic chronicle of 1 Kings 5:9. where ignorance is clearly acknowledged on this subject. On the other hand, the earlier chronicle states that Elath served as the port of Jerusalem on the Red Sea, and, after Solomon’s time, was repeatedly taken out of the possession of the Jewish kings, and re-captured. Josephus (4n(. VIII. vii. 4) asserts that Solomon had the roads leading to Jerusalem paved with black stone, but his authority for this statement is unknown. The process of road-making is described in the familiar passage Isaiah 40:4. with allusions to the operations of mounding and excavating, possibly of paving; but these operations may have been learned from Babylonian or Persian rather than Israelitish examples. Moreover, such roads were necessary for military rather than commercial expeditions, in which wheeled vehicles were not ordinarily used.

8. Transport. — Before the construction of railways in Palestine, transport was ordinarily on the backs of men or animals, and of the latter camels are mentioned in connexion with goods brought from Arabia (1 Kings 10:2. Isaiah 60 etc.), and even with such as were carried in Syria and Palestine (2 Kings 8:9, 1 Chronicles 12:40). In the last reference these animals are mentioned together with asses, oxen, and mules; and probably the first and last of these were more ordinarily employed for internal traffic. At a later time they first appear to have been employed almost exclusively in the corn-trade, in which they figure as early as Genesis 42:26. The allusions to the employment of human transport are more often metaphorical than literal; yet such passages as Isaiah 58:6 seem distinctly to refer to it and to the instruments employed in fixing the burdens on the slaves’ persons. ‘Caravans’ are mentioned in Job 6:18 f.; Isaiah 21:13. Ezekiel 27:25 [all RV], and Judges 5 (RVm).

9. Commercial instruments.— The money-lender appears at the very commencement of the history of the Israelitish kingdom, where we are told that David’s followers were to some extent insolvent debtors; and the Jewish law allowed the taking of pledges, but not (it would seem) the taking of interest, except from foreigners. The result of similar legislation in Moslem countries is to make the rate of interest enormously high, and in Palestine it may have had the same effect. Deeds of loan appear not to be mentioned in the OT, though there is frequent reference to the danger of giving security. To the institution of banking there is a familiar reference in the NT (Matthew 25:27) the persons there referred to — like the bankers of modern times — undertook the charge of deposits for the use of which they paid some interest; the money-changers (Matthew 21:12 etc.) were, as now, in a smaller way of business. Those who hoarded money more often put it ‘under the stone’ (Sirach 29:10) than entrusted it to bankers; and this is still probably the favourite practice all over the nearer East. Another common practice was to deposit money with trustworthy persons, to which there is a reference in Tobit (4:20 etc.). In most ancient cities the temples served as places of security, where treasure could be stored, and this is likely to have been the case in Israelitish cities also.

10. Development of the Israelites into a commercial people. — The prophets appear to have anticipated that the exiles would carry on in their new home the same agricultural pursuits as had occupied them in Palestine (Jeremiah 29:5) and it would appear that till the taking of Jerusalem by Titus, and perhaps even later, agriculture remained the normal occupation of the Israelites, whereas in modern times this pursuit has passed entirely out of their hands. The Jews of the Turkish empire (.e.g.) are said to furnish no cultivators of the soil, whereas the Christian population, whose political status is the same, are largely agricultural. The separation of great numbers of the people from the Palestinian soil, in successive captivities, must doubtless have led many of them to take to commerce, to which perhaps those who had no settled home would feel least repugnance; while the settlement of groups in a number of different regions would furnish them with the advantage that companies now secure by the establishment of agencies in various places. After the conquests of Alexander, ghettos began to be formed in the great Hellenic cities, and the Roman conquests soon led to colonies of Jews settling yet farther west. D. S. Mabgoliouth.

Trades

See Arts and Crafts.

Tradition

See Law (in NT), § 1.

Tragacanth

See Spice.

Trance

A condition in which the mental powers are partly or wholly unresponsive to external impressions while dominated by subjective excitement, or left free to contemplate mysteries incapable of apprehension by the usual rational processes. The word. occurs in EV only in Numbers 24:4, 16 [but cf. RV], Acts 10:10 11:5 22:17. See, further, artt. Dreams, Vision. H. L. ‘WiLLETr.

Transfiguration

The Transfiguration is a mysterious occurrence in the life of our Lord, which must be seen and felt, rather than understood. It produced a sense of awe in the hearts of the disciples (Matthew 17). Its value is symbolic. Silence regarding it is enjoined by Jesus, and practised by the disciples until the Resurrection, with which it is closely connected in significance. The problem of the transfigured body of Jesus and of the Resurrection body is the same. The event is referred to by Jesus Himself as a vision (ftorflmo, Matthew 17:9) ; it is vouched lor by the three Synoptists (Luke 9:28–36, Mark 9:2–13, Matthew 17:1–13). Elsewhere in the NT it is referred to only in 2 Peter 1:16–18. The Fourth Evangelist, after his own manner, undoubtedly expresses its inner significance tor faith in Jn l225-3». The mountain on which it took place was probably Hermon. The time was night (Luke 9:32). It was as ‘he was praying’ that the transfiguration of face and raiment appeared.

As regards the inner significance of the occurrence, one expression in St. Luke’s narrative is of great importance— leukos exastraptBn (v. 29), was white and glistering’ (AV). The sense is really ‘gleamed old white." The glory is not that of reflected light; its source is inward. It is the manifestation of a mental process. The note of time (‘six days after’ [Mt. Mk.] ; ‘about eight days after’ [Lk.]) affords the key to His thoughts and the subject of His prayers. After what? After Peter’s confession (Luke 9:18–27), and the prediction of Christ’s death (v. 22). Recognized as Messiah by the disciples, He must now prepare them to meet the stumbling-block of the cross. Thus the Transfiguration had (1) a deep significance for Jesus Himself. He was strengthened by the appearance of Moses and Ellas, who spoke of His decease (Luke 9:31). They represented the saints in heaven, who understood. Again the Voice stood for the acceptance of His work by God, and He was enabled to yield up His heart and life anew to the will of God. (2) The great lesson for the disciples was that the dreadful shame of His cross was really glory, and that all suffering is ultimately radiant with heavenly beauty, being perfected in Christ. Peter’s suggestion of the three tents is an attempt to materialize and make permanent the vision, to win the crown without the cross. The vision vanished, and they saw ‘Jesus only.’ It was real, but only a glimpse and foretaste. By loyalty once more to the Master, in the conm[ion ways of life to which they returned, the disciples would come to share the eternal glory of the Risen Lord. R. H. Stbachan.

Transgression

See Sm.

Travail

The Fr. travail, meaning ‘labour or trouble,’ was taken into Eng. without alteration of meaning or spelling. This spelling is found in AV, and it is still sometimes used, especially for the labour of child-birth. But the spelling ‘travel’ afterwards became common, and the word was then confined to journeying, that being a recognized form of toil and trouble in those days. In Numbers 20:14 ‘Thou knowest all the travel that hath befallen us,’ the meaning is more than journeying, and so RV spells the word ‘travail,’ which was the original spelling of AV also.