W
Weights and Measures – Wimple
Page 252 of 259
Weights and Measures
Since the most important of all ancient Oriental systems of weights and measures, the Babylonian, seems to have been based on a unit of length (the measures of capacity and weight being scientifically derived therefrom), it is reasonable to deal with the measures of length before proceeding to measures of capacity and weight. At the same time it seems probable that the measures of length in use in Palestine were based on a more primitive, and (so far as we know) unscientific system, which is to be connected with Egypt. The Babylonian system associated with Gudea (c. B.C. 3000), on statues of whom a scale, indicating a cubit of 30 digits or 198 inches, has been found engraved, was not adopted by the Hebrews.
I. Measuhes of Length.
The Hebrew unit was a cubit (i of a reed, ), containing 2 spans or 6 palms or 24 finger’s breadths. The early system did not recognize the foot or the fathom. Measurements were taken both by the 6-cubit rod or reed and the line or ‘fillet’ (. . ).
The ancient Hebrew literary authorities for the early Hebrew cubit are as follows. The ‘cubit of a man’ () was the unit by which the ‘bedstead’ of Og, king of Bashan, was measured (cf. ). This implies that at the time to which the passage belongs (apparently not long before the time of Ezekiel) the Hebrews were familiar with more than one cubit, of which that in question was the ordinary working cubit. Solomon’s Temple was laid out on the basis of a cubit ‘after the first (or ancient) measure’ (2 Oh ). Now Ezekiel (i(fi 43) prophesies the building of a Temple on a unit which he describes as a cubit and a hand’s breadth, i.e. i of the ordinary cubit. As in his vision he is practically reproducing Solomon’s Temple, we may infer that Solomon’s cubit, i.e. the ancient cubit, was also i of the ordinary cubit of Ezekiel ‘s time. We thus have an ordinary cubit of 6, and what we may call (by analogy with the Egyptian system) the royal cubit of 7 hand’s breadths. For this double system is curiously parallel to the Egyptian, in which there was a common cubit of 0-450 m. or 17-72 in., which was ? of the royal cubit of 0-525 ra. or 20-67 in. (these data are derived from actual measuring rods). A similar distinction between a common and a royal norm existed in the Babylonian weight-system. Its object there was probably to give the government an advantage in the case of taxation; probably also in the case of measures of length the excess of the royal over the common measure had a similar object.
We have at present no means of ascertaining the exact dimensions of the Hebrew ordinary and royal cubits. The balance of evidence is certainly in favour of a fairly close approximation to the Egyptian system. The estimates vary from 16 to 25-2 inches. They are based on: (1) the Siloam inscription, which says: ‘The waters flowed from the outlet to the Pool 1200 cubits,’ or, according to another reading, ‘1000 cubits.’ The length of the canal is estimated at 537-6 m., which yields a cubit of 0 525 to 0 527 m. (20-67 to 20 75 in.) or 0-538 m. (21-18 in.) according to the reading adopted. Further uncertainty is occasioned by the possibility of the number 1200 or 1000 being only a round number. The evidence of the Siloam inscription is thus of a most unsatisfactory kind. (2) The measurements of tombs. Some of these appear to be constructed on the basis of the Egyptian cubit; others seem to yield cubits of 0-575 m. (about 22-6 in.) or 0-641 m. (about 25-2 in.). The last two cubits seem to be improbable. The measurements of another tomb (known as the Tomb of Joshua) seem to confirm the deduction of the cubit of about 0-525 m. (3) The measurement of grains of barley. This has been objected to for more than one reason. But the Rabbinical tradition allowed 144 barley-corns of medium size, laid side by side, to the cubit; and it is remarkable that a recent careful attempt made on these lines resulted in a cubit of 17-77 in. (0-451 m.), which is the Egyptian common cubit. (4) Recently it has been pointed out that Josephus, when using Jewish measures of capacity, etc., which differ from the Greek or Roman, is usually careful to give an equation explaining the measures to his Greek or Roman readers, while in the case of the cubit he does not do so, but seems to regard the Hebrew and the Roman-Attic as practically the same. The Roman-Attic cubit (li ft.) is fixed at 0-444 m. or 17-57 in., so that we have here a close approximation to the Egyptian common cubit. Probably in Josephus’ time the Hebrew common cubit was, as ascertained by the methods mentioned above, 0-450 m.; and the difference between this and the Attic-Roman was regarded by him as negligible for ordinary purposes. (5) The Mishna. No data of any value for the exact determination of the cubit are to be obtained from this source. Four cubits is given as the length of a loculus in a rock-cut tomb ; it has been pointed out that, allowing some 2 inches for the bier, and taking 5 ft. 6 in. to 5 ft. 8 in. as the average height of the Jewish body, this gives 4 cubits = 5 ft. 10 in., or 17i in. to the cubit. On the cubit in Herod’s Temple, see A. R. S. Kennedy in art. Temple (p. 902), and in artt. in ExpT xx. [1908], p. 24 ff.
The general inference from the above five sources of information is that the Jews had two cubits, a shorter and a longer, corresponding closely to the Egyptian common and royal cubit. The equivalents are expressed in the following table: —
Royal System.
Common System. Finger’s breadth . Palm =4 fingers . Span =3 palms . Cubit =2 spans . Reed =6 cubits . Metres. 0022 0-088 0-262 0-525 3-150
Inches.
086
3-44
10-33
20-67
124-02 Metres. 0019 0-075 0 225 0 450 2-700
Inches.
0-74
2-95
8-86
17-72
10632
Parts and multiples of the unit. — The ordinary parts of the cubit have already been mentioned. They occur as follows: the finger’s breadth or digit (. the daktyl of Josephus) ; the palm or hand’s breadth (. , etc.); the span ( etc.). A special measure is the gSmed, which was the length of the sword of Ehud (). and is not mentioned elsewhere. It was explained by the commentators as a short cubit (hence EV ‘cubit’ ) , and it has been suggested that it was the cubit of 5 palms, which is mentioned by Rabbi Judah. The Greeks also had a short cubit, known as the pygon, of 5 palms, the distance from the elbow to the first joint of the fingers. The reed ( = 6 cubits) is the only definite OT multiple of the cubit (). This is the akaina of the Greek writers. The pace of is probably not meant to be a definite measure. A ‘little way’ ( , ) is also indefinite. Syr. and Arab, translators compared it with the parasang, but it cannot merely for that reason be regarded as fixed. A day’s journey (. , . ) and its multiples (, ) are of course also variable.
The Sabbath day’s journey () was usually computed at 2000 cubits. This was the distance by which the ark preceded the host of the Israelites, and it was consequently presumed that this distance might be covered on the Sabbath, since the host must be allowed to attend worship at the ark. The distance was doubled by a legal fiction: on the eve of the Sabbath, food was placed at a spot 2000 cubits on, and this new place thus became the traveller’s place within the meaning of the prescription of ; there were also other means of increasing the distance. The Mt. of Olives was distant a Sabbath day’s journey from Jerusalem, and the same distance is given by Josephus as 5 stadia, thus confirming the 2000 cubits computation. But in the Talmud the Sabbath day’s journey is equated to the mil of 3000 cubits or 7i furlongs; and the measure ‘threescore furlongs’ of . being an exact multiple of this distance, seems to indicate that this may have been one form (the earlier?) of the Sabbath day’s journey.
In later times, a Byzantine writer of uncertain date, Julian of Ascalon, furnishes information as to the measures in use in Palestine ( Pro-vincial measures, derived from the work of the architect Julian of Ascalon, from the laws or customs prevailing in Palestine,’ is the title of the table). From this we obtain (omitting doubtful points) the following table: —
1. The finger’s breadth.
2. The palm=4 finger’s breadths.
3. The eubit= li feet=6 pakns.
4. The pace=2 cubits = 3 feet=12 palms.
5. The fathom =2 paces = 4 cubits = 6 feet.
6. The reed = li fathoms = 6 cubits = 9 feet = 36 palms.
7. The plethron=10 reeds = 15 fathoms=30 pace3=60 cubits = 90 feet.
8. The stadium or furlone=6 plethra=60 reeds=100 fathoms = 200 paces = 400 ciibits = 600 feet.
9. (a) The milion or mile, ‘according to Eratosthenes and Strabo’ = 8J stadia=833i fathoms.
(6) The milion ‘according to the present use ‘=7 J stadia= 750 fathoms= 1500 paces = 3000 cubits.
10. The present milion of 7i stadia = 750 ‘geometric’ fathoms = 833 J ‘simple’ fathoms; for 9 geometric fathoms = 10 simple fathoms.
We may justifiably assume that the 3000 cubits of 9 (6) are the royal cubits of 0- 525 m. The geometric and simple measures according to Julian thus work out as follows: —
Geometric.
Simple. Finger’s breadth Palm . . . Cubit . Fathom Metres. 0-022 0-088 0-525 2-100
Inches.
0-86
3-44
20-67
82-68 Metres. 0-020 0-080 0473 1-890
Inches.
0 79
311
18-62
74-49
Measures of area. — For smaller measures of area there seem to have been no special names, the dimensions of the sides of a square being usually stated. For land measures, two methods of computation were in use. (1) The first, as in most countries, was to state area in terms of the amount that a yoke of oxen couid plough in a day (cf. the Latin fugerum). Thus in (possibly also in the corrupt ) we have ‘10 yoke’ (tsemed) of vineyard. Although definite authority is lacking, we may perhaps equate the Hebrew yoke of land to the Egyptian unit of land measure, which was 100 royal cubits square (0-2756 hectares or 0-6810 acre). The Greeks called this measure the aroura. (2) The second measure was the amount of seed required to sow an area. Thus ‘the sowing of a homer of barley’ was computed at the price of 50 shekels of silver (). The dimensions of the trench which Elijah dug about his altar () have also recently been explained on the same principle; the trench (i.e. the area enclosed by it) is described as being ‘like a house of two seahs of seed’ (AV and RV wrongly ‘as great as would contain two measures of seed’). This measure ‘house of t-wo seahs’ is the standard of measurement in the Mishna, and is defined as the area of the court of the Tabernacle, or 100 X50 cubits (c. 1648 sq. yds. or 0-1379 hectares). Other measures of capacity were used in the same way, and the system was Babylonian in origin; there are also traces of the same system in the West, under the Roman Empire.
II. Measxjres of Capacity.
The terms ‘handful’ () and the like do not represent any part of a system of measures in Hebrew, any more than in English. The Hebrew ‘measure’ par excellence was the seah, Gr. saion. From the Greek version of and other sources we know that the ephah contained 3 such measures. Epiphanius describes the seah or Hebrew modius as a modius of extra size, and as equal to li Roman modius =20 sextarii. Josephus, however, equates it with li Roman modius =24 sextarii. An anonymous Greek fragment agrees with this, and so also does Jerome in his commentary on . Epiphanius elsewhere, and other writers, equate it with 22 sextarii (the Bab. ephah is computed at 66 sextarii). The seah was used for both liquid and dry measure.
The ephah (the word is suspected of Egyp. origin) of 3 scSfts was used for dry measure only; the equivalent liquid measure was the bath (Gr. bados, batos, keramion, choinix). They are equated in , each containing A of a homer. The ephah corresponds to the Gr. artabe (although in six artabai go to a homer) or metretes. Josephus equates it to 72 sextarii. The bath was divided into tenths (), the name of which is unknown; the ephah likewise into tenths, which were called ‘omer or ‘issaron (distinguish from homer =10 ephahs). Again the ephah and bath were both divided into sixths () the i bath was the hin, but the name of the i ephah is unknown.
The homer (, ) or cor (, ; Gr. koros) contained 10 ephahs or baths, or 30 seahs. (The term ‘cOr’ is used more especially for liquids.) It corresponded to 10 Attic metretai (so Jos. Ant. xv. ix. 2, though he says medimni by a slip). The word cSr may be connected with the Bab. gw or ffurru.
The reading lethek which occurs in , and by Vulgate and EV is rendered by ‘half a homer,’ is doubtful. Epiphanius says the Idmk is a large ‘Bmer igomer) of 15 modii.
The hin (Gr. hein) was a liquid measure =i seah. In the LXX renders it choua. But Josephus and Jerome and the Talmud equate it to 2 Attic choes = 12 sextarii. The hin was divided into halves, thirds ( =cab), quarters, sixths, and twelfths (= log). In later times there were a ‘sacred hin’ =J of the ordinary hin, and a large hin =2 sacred hins=i ordinary hin. The Egyp. hen, of much smaller capacity (0’455 1.) is to be distinguished.
The ‘omer (Gr gomor) is confined to dry measure. It is A ephah and is therefore called assaron or’ issaron (AV tenth deal’). Epiphanius equates it accordingly to 7i sextarii, Eusebius less accurately to 7 sextarii. Eusebius also calls it the ‘little gomor’; but there was another ‘little gomor’ of 12 modii, so called in distinction from the ‘large gomor’ of 15 modii (the lethek of Epiphanius). Josephus wrongly equates the gomor to 7 Attic kotylai.
The cab (. Gr. kabos) was both a liquid and a dry measure. From Josephus and the Talmud it appears that it was equal to 4 sextarii, or J hin. In other places it is equated to 6 sextarii, 5 sextarii (‘great cab’ = li cab), and i modius (Epiphanius, who, according to the meaning he attaches to modius here, may mean 4, 5, 5i, or 6 sextarii I).
The log (, ) is a measure of oil; the Talmud equates it to A hin or A seah, i.e. i cab. Josephus renders the i cab of by the Greek xestes or Roman seictarius, and there is other evidence to the same effect.
A measure of doubtful capacity is the nebel of wine (Gr. version of , instead of lethek of barley). It was 150 sextarii, by which may be meant ordinary sextarii or the larger Syrian sextarii which would make it =3 baths. The word means ‘wine-skin.’
We thus obtain the following table (showing a mixed decimal and sexagesimal system) of dry and liquid measures. Where the name of the liquid differs from that of the dry measure, the former is added in italics. Where there is no corresponding liquid measure, the dry measure is asterisked.
The older portion of this system seems to have been the sexagesimal, the ‘Om^ and A bath and the lethek (if it ever occurred) being intrusions.
When we come to investigate the actual contents of the various measures, we are, in the first instance, thrown back on the (apparently only approximate) equations with the Roman sextarius (Gr. xestes) and its multiples already mentioned. The log would then be the equivalent of the sextarius, the bath of the metroes, the cab (of 6 logs) of the Ptolemaic chous. It log and sextarius were exact equivalents, the ephah of 72 logs would=39-39 litres, = nearly 88 gallons. This is on the usual assumption that the sextarius was 0-545 1. or 0-96 imperial pints. But the exact capacity of the Homer or cor 1 Lethek .... 2 1 Ephah, bath 10 5 1 Seah 30 15 3 1 J ephah, hin 60 30 6 2
1 ‘Omer or ‘issaron, A bath . 100 50 10 3J
13
1 i hin 120 60 12 4
2
IJ
1 Cab 180 90 18 6
3
li
li
1 i hin . . . 240 120 24 8
4
2J
2
IJ
1 i cab, i hin 360 180 36 12
6
38
3
2
li
1 i cab, log . 720 360 72 24
12
7J
a
4
3
2
1 t cab 1440 720 144 48
24
14J
12
8
6
4
2
1 sextarius is disputed, and a capacity as high as 0-562 1. or 0-99 imperial pint is given for the sextarius by an actually extant measure. This would give as the capacity of the ephah-bath 40-46 1. or 71-28 pints. But it is highly improbable that the equation of log to sextarius was more than approximate. It is more easy to confound closely resembling measures of capacity than of length, area, or weight.
Other methods of ascertaining the capacity of the ephah are the following. We may assume that it was the same as the Babylonian unit of 0 505 1. (0-89 pint) . This would give an ephah of 36-37 1., ornearly 8 gallons or 66-5 sextarii of the usually assmned weight, and more or less f.quares with Epiphanius’ equation of theseah or i ephah with 22 sextarii. Or we may connect it with the Egyptian system, thus: both the ephah-bath and the Egyptian -Ptolemaic artabe are equated to the Attic metrites of 72 sextarii. Now, in the case of the artabe this is only an approximation, tor it is known from native Egyptian sources (which give the capacity in terms of a volume of water of a certain weight) that the artabe was about 36*45 1., or a little more than 64 pints. Other calculations, as from a passage of Josephus, where the cor is equated to 41 Attic (Graeco-Roman) modii (i.e. 656 sextarii), give the same result. In this passage modii is an almost certain emendation of medimni, the confusion between the two being natural in a Greek MS. There are plenty of other vague approximations, ranging from 60 to 72 sextarii. Though the passage of Josephus is not quite certain in its text, we may accept it as na-ving the appearance of precise determination, especially since it gives a result not materially differing from other sources of information.
In the above table, the values of the measures are given according to three estimates, viz. (1) log = Babylonian unit of 0-505 1.; (2) ephah =65 pints; (3) log =sextarius of 0-99 pint.
Foreign measures of capacity mentioned in NT. — Setting aside words which strictly denote a measure of capacity, but are used loosely to mean simply a vessel (e.g. ‘cup’ in ). the following, among others, have been noted. Bushel () is the tr. of modius, which represents seah. Firkin is used () to represent the Greek metrites, the rough equivalent of the bath. Measure in represents the Gr. choinix of about 2 pints.
III. Measures op Weight.
The system of weights used in Palestine was derived from Babylonia. Egypt does not seem to have exerted any influence in this respect. The chief denominations in the system were the talent (Gr. talanton, Heb. kikkar meaning, apparently, a round cake-like object), the mina (Gr. mna, Heb. maneh; tr. ‘pound’ in and elsewhere, though ‘pound’ in means the Roman pound of 327-45 grammes or 5053-3 grs. troy), and the shekel (Gr. siklos or siglos, Heb. sheqel, from shaqal, ‘to weigh’). The shekel further was divided into 20 gerahs (gerah apparently —the Babylonian giru, a small weight of silver). [References to shekels or other denominations of precious metal in pre-exilic times must be to uncoined metal, not to coins, which are of later origin.] For ordinary purposes60 shekels made a mina, and 60 minae a talent; but for the precious metals a mina of 50 shekels was employed, although the talent contained 60 mins, as in the other case. There were two systems, the heavy and the light, the former being double of the latter. The evidence of certain extant Bab. weights proves that there was a very complex system, involving at least two norms, one of which, the royal, used for purposes of taxation, was higher than the other, the common. For our purposes, we may here confine ourselves to the common norm in the heavy and light systems. It may, however, be mentioned that the ‘king’s weight,’ according to which Absalom’s hair weighed 200 shekels (). is probably to be referred to this royal norm. Combining the evidence of the extant Bab. weights with the evidence of later coins of various countries of the ancient world, and with the knowledge, derived from a statement in Herodotus, that the ratio of gold to silver was as 13 J to 1, we obtain the following results: —
Heavy.
Light.
Grains
Grammes.
Grains
Grammes.
Troy.
Troy.
Talent .
757,380
49,077
378,690
24,539
Mina
12,623
818
6,3115
409
Shekel .
252-5
1636
126 23
8-18
Value of the
gold shekel
in silver
3,3666
218-1
1,6843
1091
i.e., ten pieces
of silver of
3366
21-81
168-4
1091
Or fifteen pieces
of silver of
224-4
14-54
112-2
727 N. B. — One hea-vy talent=98-154 lbs. avoirdupois; one heavy niina= 1 -636 lb. avoirdupois.
Now the pieces of A and A of the value of the gold shekel in silver were the units on which were based systems known as the Babylonian or Persic and the Phoenician respectively; the reason tor the names being that these two standards seem to have been associated by the Greeks, the first with Persia, whose coins were struck on this standard, the second with the great Phoenician trading cities, Sidon, Tyre, etc. For convenience’ sake the names ‘Babylonian’ and ‘Phoenician’ may be retained, although it must be remembered that they are conventional. The above table gives the equivalents in weights on the two systems, both for the precious metals {in which the mina weighed 50 shekels) and for trade (in which it weighed 60 shekels).
The evidence of actual weights found in Palestine is as follows: 1. 2. 3. Three stone weights from Tell Zakarlya, inscribed apparently netseph, and weighing — 10-21 grammes = 157-564 grains troy. 9-5 „ =146-687
9 0 „ =138 891
4. A weight with the same inscription, from near Jerusalem, weighing 8-61 grammes = 134-891 grains troy.
6. A weight from Samaria inscribed apparently i netseph and i shekel, weighing 2-54 grammes=39-2 grains troy; yielding a netseph of 9-16 grammes = 156-8 grains troy. This has been dated In the 8th cent. B.C.; and all the weights are apparently of pre-exilic date. There are other weights from Gezer, which have, without due cause, been connected with the netseph standard; and a second set of weights from Gezer, Jerusalem, Zakariya, and Tell el-Judeideh may be ignored, as they seem to bear Cypriote inscriptions, and represent a standard weight of 93 grammes maximum. Some addition must be allowed to Nos. 2 and 3 of the above-mentioned netseph weights, for fracture, and probably to No. 4, which is pierced. The highest of these weights is some 10 grains or 0-7 grammes less than the light Bab. shekel. It probably, therefore, represents an independent standard, or at least a deliberate modification, not an accidental degradation, of the Bab. standard. Weights from Naucratis point to a standard of about 80 grains, the double of which would be 160 grains, which is near enough to the actual weight of our specimens (maximum 157% grains). We need not here concern ourselves with the origin of this standard, or with the meaning of netseph; there can be no doubt of the existence of such a standard, and there is much probability that it is connected with the standard which was in use at Naucratis. Three weights from Lachish (Tell el- Hesy) also indicate the existence of the same 80-grain standard in Palestine. The standard in use at the city of Aradus (Arvad) for the coinage is generally identified with the Babylonian; but as the shekel there only exceptionally exceeds 165 grains, it, too, may have been an approximation to the standard we are considering. But in Hebrew territory there can be no doubt that this early standard was displaced after the Exile by a form of the Phoenician shekel of 14-54 grammes, or 224-4 grains. It has, indeed, been thought that this shekel can be derived by a certain process from the shekel of 160 grains; but on the whole the derivation from the gold shekel of 126-23 grains suggested above is preferable.
The evidence as to the actual use of this weight in Palestine is as follows: From f. it appears that the Hebrew talent contained 3000 shekels. Now, Josephus equates the mina used for gold to 2% Roman pounds, which is 12,633-3 grains troy, or 818-625 grammes; this is only 10 grains heavier than the heavy mina given above. From Josephus also we know that the kikkar or talent contained 100 minas. The talent for precious metals, as we have seen, contained 3000 shekels; therefore the shekel should be *^‘iSj5?" grains = 421 grains. We thus have a heavy shekel of 421 grains, and a light one of 210-5 grains. There is other evidence equating the Hebrew shekel to weights varying from 210-48 to 210 55 grains. This is generally supposed to be the Phoenician shekel of 224-4 grains in a slightly reduced form. Exactly the same kind of reduction took place at Sidon in the course of the 4th cent. B.C., where, probably owing to a fall in the price of gold, the weight of the standard silver shekel fell from about 28 60 grammes (441-36 grains) to 26 30 grammes (405-9 grains). A change in the ratio between gold and silver from 13J:1 to 12i: l would practically, in a country with a coinage, necessitate a change in tiie weight of the shekel such as seems to have taken place here; and although the Jews had no coinage of their own before the time of the Maccabees, they would naturally be influenced by the weights in use in Phoenicia. The full weight shekel of the old standard probably remained in use as the’ shekel of the sanctuary,’ for that weight was 20 gerahs (. ). which is translated in the LXX by ‘20 obols,’ meaning, presumably, 20 Attic obols of the time; and this works out at 224-2 grains. This shekel was used not only for the silver paid for the ‘ransom of souls,’ but also for gold, copper, and spices (, ff.) in fact, the Priests’ Code regarded it as the proper system for all estimations (). The beka = i shekel is mentioned in . .
Foreign weights in the NT. — The ‘pound’ of spikenard(Jn ) or of myrrh and aloes () is best explained as the Romanlibra (Gr. Htra) of 327-45 grammes. The ‘pound’ in f. is the money-mina or A of the Roman-Attic talent (see art. Money, 7 (;)). The ‘talent’ mentioned in also probably belongs to the same system.
For further information see esp. A. R. S. Kennedy, art. ‘Weights and Measures’ in Hastings’ DB, with bibliography there given. Recent speculations on the Heb. systems, and publications of weights will be found in PBFSt, 1902, p. 80 (three forms of cubit, 18 in., 14.4 in., and 10-8 in.); 1902, p. 175 (Conder on general system of Hebrew weights and measures) ; 1904, p. 209 (weights from Gezer, etc.); 1906, pp. 182 f., 259 f. (Warren on the ancient system of weights in general); Comptes Rmdus de I’Acad. des Inscr. 1906, p. 237 f. (Clermont-Ganneau on the capacity of the hin).
G. F. Hill.
Well
See Cistern, Fountain, Water.
Wen
See Medicine, p. 600».
Wench
This word, once good English, was used by the Bishops’ Bible of 1568, and was transferred to AV at . So Wyclif at ‘Go ye away, for the wenche is not dead, but slepith.’
Whale
1. tannin. See Dragon (4). 2. dag gadSl, the ‘great flsh’ of . is in the LXX- and in rendered in Gr. by ketos and tr. ‘whale,’ though the Gr. word has a much wider significance. It is impossible to say what kind of flsh is intended in the narrative. See, further, art. Jonah.
E. W. G. Mastekman.
Wheat
Wheat ichittah, . etc.; sitos, 132s. 2». 30, etc.).— The wheat of Palestine is mostly of the bearded varieties; it is not only eaten as bread, but also boiled, unground, to make the peasant’s dish burghid, which is in turn pounded with meat in a mortar (cf. ) to make the festive delicacy kibbeh. Wheat is grown all over the valleys and plains of W. Palestine, though to a less extent than barley, but it is cultivated in the largest quantities in the Nuqra or plain of the Hauran, one of the finest grain-growing countries in the world. The wheat harvest occurs from April to June; its time was looked upon as one of the divisions of the year (, . ). The expressions ‘fat of wheat’ ( mg., mg.) and ‘the fat of kidneys of wheat’ () refer to the finest flour of wheat.
E. W. G. Masterman.
Wheel
The various parts of a cart or chariot wheel are enumerated in connexion with the bronze wheels of Solomon’s layers (, f.) In RV reads: ‘And the work of the wheels was like the work of a chariot wheel: their axletrees, and their felloes, and their spokes, and their naves were all molten’ (cf. AV). In carts and chariots the essential parts were, of course, of wood. The felloes were made in segments dowelled together. For illustt. see Wilkinson. Anc. Egy. i. 234 ff. The finest specimen of a Roman chariot wheel as yet found has the felloe, ‘which is formed of a single piece of wood bent,’ and the nave shod with iron, the latter being also ‘bushed with iron’ (Scott, Hist. Rev., Oct. 1905, p. 123, with illust.). For the potter’s wheel, see Potter. Wells and cisterns were also furnished with wheels, over which the rope passed tor drawing up the water-bucket (). See also Cart, Chariot. A. R. S. Kennedy.
Whirlwind
Whirlwind represents two Heb. words — snphah (. etc., also tr. ‘storm’ in , . etc.), and sa’ar or se’arah (. Job 3S>, etc., also tr. ‘tempest,’ and ,’ stormy wind,’ . etc.) The words do not necessarily mean ‘whirlwind,’ and are applied to any furious storm. From the context, however, in certain passages, we gather that whirlwind is intended — a violent wind moving in a circle round its axis (, . etc.). It often works great havoc in its path, as it sweeps across the country. Drawing up sand, dust, straw, and other light articles as it gyrates, it presents the appearance of a great pillar — an object of fear to travellers and dwellers in the desert. Passing over the sea, it draws up the water, and the bursting of the column causes the water-spout. God spake to Job from the whirlwind () ; the modern Arabian regards it with superstitious dread, as the residence of demons. W. Bwinq.
White
See CoLonns, § 1.
White of an Egg
White of an egg (EV . RVm ‘juice of purslain’). — The allusion should perhaps be understood to be the juice of some insipid plant, probably Portulaca oleracea, L., the common purslane. ‘White of an egg’ (lit., on this view, ‘slime of the yoke’) is still, however, accepted by many interpreters.
Whore
This term is generally replaced in RV by harlot (wh. see).
Widow
Widows from their poverty and unprotectedness, are regarded in OT as under the special guardianship of God ( . . . ) and consequently due regard for their wants was looked upon as a mark of true religion, ensuring a blessing on those who showed it ( . . , , ) while neglect of, cruelty or injustice towards them were considered marks of wickedness meriting punishment from God (, , . . . Zee . ", Mai ). The Book of Deut. is especially rich in such counsels, insisting that widows be granted full justice ( ). that they be received as guests at sacriflcial meals (IV , f.). and that they be suffered to glean unmolested in field, oliveyard, and vineyard ( f.). See, further, Inheritance, i. 2 (c); Marriage, 6.
The earliest mention of widows in the history of the Christian Church is found in . where the Grecian Jews murmured ‘against the Hebrews because their widows were neglected’ in the daily distribution of alms or food. In course of time these pensioners became an excessive burden on the finances of the Church. We thus find St. Paul dealing with the matter in . where he charges relatives and Christian friends to relieve those widows with whom they are personally connected ( "), so that the Church might be the more able to relieve those who were ‘widows indeed’ (i.e. widows in actual poverty and without any one responsible for their support) (). He further directs that ‘none be enrolled as widows’ except those who were sixty years of age, of unimpeachable character, and full of good works; and he adds that ‘the younger widows’ should be ‘refused’ (i.e. not enrolled); lor experience had shown that they ‘waxed wanton against Christ’ and, re-marrying, ‘rejected their first faith.’ Since it could not have been the Apostle’s wish that only widows over sixty should receive pecuniary help from the Church (for many young widows might be in great poverty), and since he could not describe the re-marriage of such a widowpensioner as a rejection of her faith, it follows that the list of widows, from which the younger widows were to be excluded, was not the list of those who were in receipt of Church relief, but rather a list of those, from among the pensioner-widows, who were considered suitable by age and character to engage ofBcially in Church work. Therefore we may see in this passage a proof of the existence thus early in the history of the Church of that ecclesiastical order of ‘Widows’ which we find mentioned frequently in post-Apostolic times. Charles T. P. Gribrson.
Wife
See Family, 2; Marriage.
Wilderness, Desert
These terms stand for several Heb. and Gr. words, with different shades of meaning.
1. midbar (from dabar, ‘to drive’) means properly the land to which the cattle were driven, and is used of dry pasture land where scanty grazing was to be found. It occurs about 280 times in OT and is usually tr. ‘wilderness,’ though we have ‘desert’ about a dozen times. It is the place where wild animals roam: pelicans (). wild asses (. ). ostriches (). jackals (Mai ) and is without settled inhabitants, though towns or settlements of nomadic tribes may be found (, . ). This terra is usually applied to the Wilderness of the Wanderings or the Arabian desert, but may refer to any other waste. Special waste tracts are distinguished: wilderness of Shur, Zin, Paran, Kadesh, Maon, Ziph, Tekoa, Moab, Edom, etc.
2. ‘arabah (probably from a word meaning’ dry’) signifies a dry, desolate, unfertile tract of land, ‘steppe,’ or ‘desert plain.’ As a proper name, it is applied to the great plain including the Jordan Valley and extending S. to the Gulf of Akabah, ‘the Arabah.’ but it is applied also to steppes in general, and translated ‘wilderness,’‘desert,’ and sometimes in pi. ‘plains,’ e.g. of Moab, of Jericho.
3. chorbah (from a root ‘to be waste or desolate’) is properly applied to cities or districts once Inhabited now lying waste, and is translated ‘wastes,’ ‘deserts,’ ‘desolations,’ though it is once used of the Wilderness of the Wanderings ().
4. tsiyyah meaning ‘dry ground’ ia twice translated ‘wilderness’ in AV: (RV ‘dry ground’), (RV ‘desert,’ RVm ‘a dry land’).
5. iohu has the special meaning of a ‘wild desolate expanse.’ In it is the waste where the caravans perish. It is applied to the primeval chaos (), , also to the Wilderness of the Wanderings (Dt32"‘‘waste howling wilderness’).
6. The NT terras are erSmos and erlmia, the former being used either as noun or as adjective, with ‘place’ or ‘country’ understood. Generally the noun is tr. ‘wilderness,’ the adjective ‘desert’ in the English versions.
On deserts named in NT see artt. on respective names.
W. F. Boyd.
Wild Olive
See Grafting, Olive.
Wild Ox
See Unicorn.
Will
‘Will’ and ‘would’ are often Independent verbs in AV, and being now merely auxiliaries, their force is liable to be missed by the English reader. Thus ‘if ye will receive it’ (EV ‘if ye are willing to receive it’); ‘Jesus would go forth into Galilee’ (RV ‘was minded to go forth’).
Will
See Paul, p. 692»; Testament.
Willow
Willow (‘firSMm, . , , 44* [cf. Arab, gharab’ willow’ or ‘poplar’]; tsaphtsaphah, [cf. Arab, safsaf ‘the willow’]). — Most of the references are to a tree growing beside water, and apply well to the willow, of which two varieties, Salix fragilis and S. alba, occur plentifully by watercourses in the Holy Land. Some travellers consider the poplar, especially the willow-like Populus euphratica, of the same Nat. Ord. (.Saiicacew) as the willows, more probable. Tristram, without much evidence, considered that tsaphtsB.phah might be the oleander, which covers the banks of so many streams. E. W. G. Mabterman.
Wimple
Only AV; RV shawls. The precise article of dress intended is unknown.
James Hastings (ed.), with John A. Selbie and John C. Lambert, Dictionary of the Bible (Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1909). Public domain. Scan of Cornell University Library’s copy from the Internet Archive; text from its OCR, with the Bible references read again from the page images.