C
Cistern – Cocker
Page 36 of 259
Cistern
In Palestine, the climate and geological formation of the country render the storage of water a prime necessity of existence. Hence cisterns, mostly hewn in the solid rock, were universal in Bible times, and even before the Hebrew conquest (. . both RV). Thus at Gezer it has been found that ‘the rock was honeycombed with cisterns, one appropriated to each house [cf. ) or group of houses . . . (and) fairly uniform in character. A circular shaft, about 3 feet in diameter and 5 feet deep, cut through the rock, expands downwards into a chamber roughly square or circular in plan, about 13 to 25 feet in diameter and generally about 20 feet deep. . . . The wall is generally covered with coarse plaster’ (.PEFSt 1903, 111 f.).
A cistern might contain only rain water conveyed from the court or flat roof during the rainy season by gutters and pipes, or might be ted by a conduit led from a spring at a distance. The largest of the innumerable cisterns of Jerusalem, the ‘great sea’ in the Haram area, which is estimated to have held 3,000,000 gallons, derived its water-supply partly from surface drainage and partly from water brought by a conduit from Solomon’s Pools near Bethlehem (Wilson). g
The mouth of a cistern, through which fne water Was sometimes drawn by a wheel (). ^as legally required to have a cover (. cf. Jos. Ant, iv. viii. 37). A disused or temporarily empty cistern formed a convenient place of detention, as in the case of Joseph () and of Jeremiah ( ff.).
A. R. S. Kennedy.
Citadel
(1 Maccabees 1:33 3:45 etc. [RVm]). See Foktifi-
CATION, § 4.
Cithern
(1 Maccabees 4 AV). See Music.
Cities of the Plain
See Plain [Cities ofthe].
Citizenship
See Paul, Rome.
City
The surprisingly large number of places in the ‘least of all lands’ which receive in Scripture the honourable designation of ‘city’ is In itself evidence that the OT ‘cities,’ like the NT ‘ships,’ must not be measured by modern standards. The recent excavations in Palestine have confirmed this conclusion. In his recent work, Canaan d’apres Vexploration recente (1907), the Dominican scholar. Father Vincent, has prepared plans on a uniform scale of the various sites excavated (see op. cit. 27 tf. with plate). From these the modest proportions of an ancient Canaanite or Hebrew city may be best realized. The area of Lachish, for example, did not exceed 15 acres; Taanach and Megiddo each occupied from 12 to 13 acres — an area about equal to the probable extent of the Jebusite city on Ophel captured by David ( ff.). Gezer, at the time of its greatest expansion, did not exceed 23 acres, or thereby, the circuit of its outer wall being only 1500 yards, about i of the extent of the present wall of Jerusalem.
With the exception of cities on the sea-board, the situation of the Canaanite city was determined, as elsewhere in that old world, by two supreme considerations— the presence of an adequate water-supply and the capability of easy defence against the enemy. ‘The cities of Canaan,’ says Vincent, ‘were almost invariably perched upon a projecting spur of a mountain slope, or upon an isolated eminence in the plain: Megiddo, Gezer, Tell-es-Safy [Gath?] — not to mention the hill of the primitive Jerusalem — are characteristic examples of the former site, Taanach and Lachish of the latter.’ With this well-known fact agrees the mention of the ‘cities on their mounds’ ( RV, RVm [Heb. tUllm, the Arabic tell, now so common in the topographical nomenclature of Western Asia]).
The relation between the city and the dependent villages was regarded as that of a mother ( ‘a mother in Israel’) and her daughters, a point lost in our rendering ‘villages’ (e.g. , , and passim), though noted in the margins. From these the city was outwardly distinguished by its massive walls (cf. Nu . ‘walled up to heaven’), on the construction of which recent excavation has thrown a flood of new light (see Fortification). Close to, if not actually upon, the walls, houses were sometimes built, as we learn from (cf. ).
The streets are now seen to have been exceedingly narrow and to have been laid out on no definite plan, ‘a maze of narrow crooked causeways and blind alleys,’ as at Gezer. Only at the intersection of the more important streets, and especially near the city gates, were broad places (. , , RV— where AV, as often, has ‘streets’) — the markets (. ) and market-places (. ) of NT— where the citizens met to discuss public affairs, the children to play, and the elders to dispense justice. The importance of the gates, which were closed at nightfall (). is treated of in art. Fortification and Siegeckaft, § 5. During the night the watchmen mounted guard on the ramparts, or went ‘about the city’ (, ; cf . ). A feature of an Eastern city in ancient as in modern times was the aggregation in a particular street or streets of representatives of the same craft or occupation, from which the name of the street or quarter was derived (see Arts and Crafts, § 10).
The houses were absurdly small to Western ideas (see House), for the city folk lived their life in the courts and streets, retiring to their houses mainly to eat and sleep. Every city of any importance, and in particular every royal city, had its casUe, citadel, or acropolis, as the excavations show, to which the inhabitants might flee as a last defence. Such was the ‘strong tower within the city’ of Thebez (). Indeed the common term for city (,’ir) is often used in this restricted sense; thus the ‘stronghold of Zion’ is re-named ‘David’s castle’ or citadel (. AV ‘city of David’), and the ‘city of waters’ () at Rabbath-ammon is really the ‘water fort.’
As regards the water-supply, it was essential, as we have seen, to have one or more springs in the immediate vicinity, to which ‘at the time of evening’ () the city maidens went forth to draw (see Well). Against the long rainless summer, and especially against the oft-recurring cases of siege, it was not less necessary that the city should be provided with open pools and covered cisterns for the storage of water. Mesha, king of Moab, tells in his famous inscription how, as there was ‘no cistern in the midst of’ a certain city, he ‘said to all the people: make you each a cistern in his house’ (cf. Cistern).
In the internal affairs of the city the king in Canaanite days was supreme. Under the Hebrew monarchy and later, law and justice were in the hands of ‘the elders of the city’ ( ff.: etc.). _ In addition to freemen, possessing the full rights of citizenship — the ‘men of the city’ par excellence — with their wives and children, the population will have included many slaves, mostly captives of war, and a sprinkling of sojourners and passing strangers (see Stranqeh).
No city, finally, was without its sanctuary or high place, either within its own precincts, as in most cities of note (see High Place), or on an adjoining height ( ff.). With due religious rites, too, the city had been founded in far-off Canaanite, or even, as we now know, in pre-Canaanite days, when the foundation sacrifice claimed its human victim (see House, § 3). A survival of this wide-spread custom is almost certainly to be recognized in connexion with the rebuilding of Jericho, the foundation of which was laid by Hiel the Bethelite, ‘with the loss of Abiram his first born,’ and whose gates were set up ‘with the loss of’ his youngest son, Segub (1 K \6^ RV). A. R. S. Kennedy.
Clasps
See Taches.
Clauda
See Cauda.
Claudia
A Roman Christian, perhaps wife of Fudens and mother of Linus () but Lightfoot (Clement, i. 76) shows that this is improbable. The two former names are found in a sepulchral inscription near Rome, and a Claudia was wife of Aulus Pudens, friend of Martial. If these are identified, Claudia was a British lady of high birth; but this is very unlikely.
A. J. Maclean.
Clattd
Clattd inS. — Claudius, the fourth Roman emperor, who bore the names Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, reigned from (24th) 25th Jan. 41 till his murder on 13th Oct. 54 a.d. He was a son of Nero Qaudius Drusus (the brother of the emperor Tiberius) and Antonia minor (a daughter of the triumvir Mark Antony and Octavia, sister of the emperor Augustus), and was born on 1st August 10 b.c. at Lyons. From childhood he was weaWy, and a prey to disease, which affected his mind as well as his body. This caused him to be neglected and despised. He was, however, a man of considerable ability, both literary and administrative, as he showed when he was called to succeed his own nephew Gaius (Caligula) as emperor. He has been compared with (vi. of Scotland) in both his weak and his strong points. It was in his reign that the first real occupation of Britain by the Romans took place. He is twice mentioned in Acts (ll^s and 18’). The great famine over the whole of the Roman world which Agabus foretold took place in his reign. The expulsion of Jews from Rome, due to dissensions amongst them, occurred in the year 50. This latter date is one of the few fixed points of chronology in the Book of Acts. The reign of Claudius was satisfactory to the Empire beyond the average. The government of the provinces was excellent, and a marked feature was the large number of public works executed under the emperor’s supervision. A. Souter.
CLAUDIUS LYSIAS. See Lysias.
Claw
In ‘claw’ means a bird’s claw; but In and Zee it has the obsolete meaning of an animal’s hoof.
Clay
See Pottery.
Clean and Unclean
Introductory.— The words ‘clean,’ ‘unclean,’ ‘purity,’ ‘purification,’ have acquired in the process of religious development a spiritual connotation which obscures their original meaning. Their primitive significance is wholly ceremonial; the conceptions they represent date back to a very early stage of religious practice, so early indeed that it may be called pre-rellgious, in so far as any useful delimitation can be established between the epoch in which spell and magic predominated, and that at which germs of a rudimentary religious consciousness can be detected. — In a conspectus of primitive custom, one of the most wide-spread phenomena is the existence of ‘taboo.’ Anthropology has yet to say the last word about it, and its general characteristics can be differently summarized. But, broadly speaking, taboo springs from the religion of fear. The savage met with much which he could not understand, which was supra-normal to his experience. Such phenomena appeared to him charged with a potency which was secret and uncanny, and highly energetic. They were therefore to be avoided with great care; they were ‘taboo’ to him. It would be rash to dogmatize about the origin of this notion; it most probably dates back to days prior to any conscious animistic beliefs, and may even be traceable ultimately to instincts which mankind shares with the higher animals. No doubt in later times the idea was artificially exploited in deference to the exigencies of ambition and avarice on the part of chiefs and priests, to the distrust of innovations (cf. . , . ). to the recommendations of elementary sanitation, etc. But originally the savage regarded as taboo certain persons, material substances, and bodily acts or states which he considered to possess a kind of transmissible electric energy with which it was very dangerous to meddle; and these taboos were jealously guarded by the sanctions of civil authority, and later of religious belief.
It seems probable that even at such an early epoch taboos could be viewed from two distinct points of view. A taboo might be either a blessing or a curse, according as it was handled by an expert or a layman. Thus blood produced defilement, but, properly treated, it might remove impurity. A chief or king was taboo, and to touch him produced the primitive equivalent of ‘king’s evil’; and yet his touch could remove the disease it created. The reasons for this twofold point of view are very obscure, and do not come within the scope of this article. But the differentiation seems to hare existed in a confused way at the earliest era. Afterwards this notion crystallized into a very vital distinction. On the one hand we find the conception of holiness as expressing an ofiBcial consecration and dedication to the Divine beings. A sanctuary, a season, a priest or chief, were set apart from common life and placed in a peculiar relation of intimacy to God or the gods; they were tabooed as holy. On the other hand, certain taboos were held to arise from the intrinsic repulslveness of the obuct or condition, a repulslveness which affected both GodRnd man with dislike. Such taboos were due to the essential uncleanness of their object.
With the rise of animistic beliefs and practices this differentiation was reinforced by the dualism of benevolent and malignant spirits. Uncanny energy varied according as it arose from the one or the other class, and much care must be taken to propitiate the one and avert the power of the other. Thus on the one side we find sacrificial ritual, which has as its object to please the good demons, and on the other side we have a cathartic ritual, which aims at expelling evil demons from the vicinity (cf. , where the two notions are united in one ceremony). But even after the growth of such refinements, ideas and rules survived which can be explained only as relics of primitive and even primeval taboo customs. A still later stage is seen when rules of purity are attributed to the conscious command of God, and their motive is found in His own personal character (). The Jewish sacred books teem with references which demonstrate the survival of primitive taboos. Thus Frazer draws especial attention to the Nazirite vows (). to the Sabbath regulations (, ). to the views as to death ( ff.). and childbirth(Lv 12). Similarly the origin of the conception of holiness may be seen in the idea that it is transmissible by contact ( SO’‘, . ). or in the penalty for meddling with a holy object (. ) whilst allusions to ritual uncleanness occur frequently in Ezekiel, and the legislation on the subject forms a large part of Leviticus and Deuteronomy. In some cases these ideas may have arisen in protest against historical developments of Hebrew custom. Thus it has been supposed that the Nazirite vows originated in the desire for a return to primitive simplicity by way of contrast to the habits of Palestinian Canaanites. But many of the regulations about uncleanness can be explained only by a reference to primitive ritualism, with its conceptions of objects charged with a secret energy which the ordinary man does well to shun.
The word ‘clean,’ it may be remarked, conveyed originally no positive idea. A clean object was one which was not under a taboo, which had contracted no ceremonial taint. And so again ‘purification’ meant the removal of a ceremonial taint by ceremonial means, the unclean object being thus restored to a normal condition. Fire and liquids were the best media of purification. Similarly ‘common,’ the opposite of ‘holy,’ merely meant ‘undedicated to God,’ and expressed no ethical or spiritual notion. In fact, when the conceptions of holiness and uncleanness had been definitely differentiated, the rule would be that, though the holy must be clean, the dean need in no way be holy. Later thought, however, confused the two ideas (cf. ).
I. Uncleanness in the OT. — The consequences of uncleanness and the methods of purification naturally differed in different races. But in the Jewish religion uncleanness was always held to disqualify a man for Divine worship and sacrifice. In practice a certain amount of laxity seems to have been tolerated (Ezk 44). though this did not pass without protest (. ). But, strictly, an unclean man was debarred from religious offices (, ) ; and nobody could perform them in an unclean place, e.g. in any land but Palestine (. ).
The Jewish rules about uncleanness can be roughly classified under five main heads: sexual impurity, uncleanness due to blood, uncleanness connected with food, with death, and with leprosy. This division is not scientific; some rules are equally in place in more than one class; but at present none but a rough classification is possible.
1. Sexual impurity. — All primitive religions display great terror of any functions connected, however remotely, with the organs of reproduction. Sexual intercourse produced uncleanness; and later animism taught that demons watched over such periods and must be averted with scrupulous care. The time when marriage is consummated was especially dangerous, and this idea is clearly seen in Tobit 8:1–3, though this instance is unique in Jewish sacred literature. But, apart from this, the Jews considered all intercourse to defile till evening, and to necessitate a purificatory bath (). Under certain circumstances, when cleanness was especially important, complete abstinence from women was required(Ex ). Thus, too, from it appears as if soldiers on a campaign came under this regulation; perhaps because war was a sacred function, duly opened with religious rites (cf. ). and this may also be the cause for a bridegroom’s exemption from military service for a year after marriage ().
Unciroumcision was regarded as unclean. The reason for this is not obvious; rites of circumcision were performed by many primitive nations at the time of puberty (whether for decorative purposes, or in order to prepare a young man or woman for marriage, or for some other reason), and it is possible that among the Jews this custom had been thrown back to an earlier period of life. Or it may be that they regarded circumcision as imposing a distinct tribe-mark on the infant. The condition of unciroumcision might be held as unclean because it implied foreign nationality. Taboos on strangers are very common in savage nations.
Seminal emission made a man unclean till the evening, and necessitated bathing and washing of clothes (Lv , ).
Childbirth was universally regarded as a special centre of impurity, though among the Jews we find no evidence that the new-bom child was subject to it as well as the mother. The mother was completely unclean for seven days; after that she was in a condition of modified impurity for 33 days, disqualified from entering the sanctuary or touching any hallowed thing. (These periods were doubled when the baby was a gill.) After this, in order to complete her purification, she must offer a lamb of the first year and a pigeon or turtle dove, though poorer people might substitute another pigeon or dove for the lamb (, cf. ).
Analogous notions may perhaps be traced in the prohibition of any sexual impersonation (). any mingling of different species (. ), and in the disqualifications on eunuchs, bastards, and the Ammonites and Moabites, the offspring of an incestuous union () though some of these rules look like the product of later refinement.
Human excreta were sources of uncleanness (Dt ) ; but the directions on this subject very possiWy date from the epoch of magical spells, and arose frotp the fear lest a man’s excrement might iaH"‘into an enemy’s hands and be used to work magic against him.
The prohibition to priests of woolen garments which caused sweat, is possibly an extension of a similar notion (). Finally, the abstinence from eating the sinew of the thigh, which in is explained by a reference to the story of Jacob, may have originated in the idea that the thigh was the centre of the reproductive functions.
2. Uncleanness due to blood. — The fear of blood dates back in all probability to the most primeval times, and may be in part instinctive. Among the Jews it was a most stringent taboo, and their aversion from it was reinforced by the theory that it was the seat of life (). A clear instance of the all-embracing nature of its polluting power is seen in . The same idea would probably cause the abstinence from eating beasts of prey, carrion birds, and animals which had died without being bled (, . ). To break this rule caused defilement (. ). Such a taboo is so universal and ancient that it cannot reasonably be accounted for by the Jewish hatred for heathen offerings of blood.
The taboos on menstrual blood and abnormal issues must come under this category or that of sexual impurity. Menstruation was terribly feared. It was exceedingly dangerous for a man even to see the blood. The woman in such a condition was unclean for seven days, and her impurity was higtily contagious (). Similarly, abnormal issues produced contagious uncleanness for seven days after they had stopped. The purification required was the offering of two turtle doves and two young pigeons. A man had also to bathe and wash his clothes, but we are not told that a woman was under the same necessity, though it is hardly credible that she was exempt (, )
3. Uncleanness connected with food. — Anthropology no longer explains all food taboos as survivals of totemism, though no doubt this explanation may account for some. It appears rather that ‘theriolatry’ was the more general phenomenon. For reasons which cannot even be conjectured in many cases, certain animals were treated as sacred, and tabooed accordingly; it might be that the animal was very useful or very dangerous or very strange; the savage had no consistent theory of taboo. Some animals may be cases of sympathetic taboo; they were not eaten from the fear lest their qualities should be imparted to the consumer. In later times some animals might be tabooed from more elaborate motives. But food taboos cover so wide a range, and appear in many cases so inexplicable, that no single derivation of them can be adequate.
The Jews themselves dated the distinction between clean and unclean animals from an early antiquity (cf. and S""); . however, appears to embody a theory of antediluvian vegetarianism.
The lists of clean and unclean beasts are given in and ff. It is impossible to give any certain explanation of the separate items. Clean animals are there classified as those wiiich part the hoof, are clovenfooted, and chew the cud. But this looks like an attempt of later speculation to generalize regulations already existent. The criterion would exclude the ass, horse, dog, and beasts of prey, which are nowhere mentioned as unclean. The last class, as we have seen, would probably be so on different grounds.’ The horse and dog seem to have been connected with idolatrous rites (, ). and so perhaps were forbidden. But appears to treat the ass as an ordinary article of diet. (The circumstances in are exceptional.) The rule that a kid must not be seethed in its mother’s milk ( , ) is difficult to account for. A ;nagical ,^inception appears to underUe the prohibi- Hon, and it has been suggested that some nations used to sprinkle the broth on the ground for some such purposes. In that case the taboo would be of great antiquity. But the matter is not at present satisfactorily explained. The taboo on the tree in Eden () hardly calls for discussion. So far as we know, it had no subsequent history; and the general colouring of the story makes it improbable that the prohibition had any origin in Jewish custom.
4. Uncleanness connected with death. — Death, as well as birth, was a source of great tprror to the savage. The animistic horror of ghosts and theories of a continued existence after death, gave a rationale for such terror; but it probably existed iiVpre-animistic days, and the precautions exercised with regard to dead bodies were derived’partly f rojp the intrinsic mysteriousness of death, partly from the value of a corpse for magical purposes. Among the Jews a corpse was regarded as exceptionally defiling (). Even a bone or a grave caused infectious uncleanness, and graves were whitened in order to be easily recognizable. He who touched a corpse was unclean tor seven days ( ff.). Purification was necessary on the third and seventh days; and on the latter the unclean person also washed his clothes and bathed. A corpse defiled a tent and all open vessels in it. For similar reasons warriors needed purification after a battle () a murderer defiled the land and had to flee to a city of refuge, where he must remain till the death of the high priest (). It has been suggested that this provision was due to the notion that the high priest, the temporary representative of Jahweh, was regarded as suffering from the defilement of murder as God suffered, and as the land suffered (). It is singular that apparently a person -who was unclean from touching a corpse might yet eat the Passover ().
The kinsmen of a dead man were usually also unclean; points to a similar idea among the Jews. Indeed, mourning customs were in origin probably warnings of such impurity. Some of the most common are prohibited in and . perhaps because of their heathenish associations.
The ritual of purification from corpse-defilement, described in , must be of high antiquity. The purifying medium was water, the blood and ashes of a red heifer, with cedar, hyssop, and scarlet. This was sprinkled over the unclean person on the third and seventh days, and the priest and attendants who performed the ceremony were themselves defiled by it till evening, and needed purification (cf. ). The ritual thus unites the three great cathartic media, fire, water, and aromatic woods and plants. The last, perhaps, were originally considered to be efficacious in expelling the death-demons by their scent.
5. TJncleanness connected with leprosy. — Orientals considered leprosy the one specially unclean disease, which required not healing but cleansing (c£. ). It appears to have been a kind of elephantiasis, and gives directions tor its diagnosis. If pronounced unclean, the leper was excluded from the community (cf. ). He could not attend a synagogue service in a walled town, though in open towns a special part of the synagogue was often reserved for lepers. If he was cured, he must undergo an elaborate process of purificatory ritual (), including (a) the sacrifice of one bird and the release of another, perhaps regarded as carrying away the demon; fragrant plants, water, and the blood of the dead bird were used at this stage; (6) the washing of clothes, shaving of the hair, and bathing of the body ; then (c) after seven days’ interval this second process was repeated; and finally (d) on the eighth day sacrifices were offered, and the man ceremonially cleansed with the blood and oil of the sacrifice.
II. Uncleanness in the NT. — Legal casuistry carried the cathartic ritual to a high pitch of complexity, and Jesus came into frequent conflict with the Jewish lawyers over the point (cf. ). He denounced it energetically (. ). and, by insisting on the supreme importance of moral purity, threw ceremonial ideas into a subordinate position. The full force of this teaching was not at once realized (cf . ). The decree in still recommends certain taboos. But St. Paul had no illusions on the subject (cf . , . C!of . ). In practice he made concessions to the scruples of others (. ) as Jesus had done () and it was recognized that a man who had scruples must not be encouraged to violate them. But it was inevitable that with the process of time and reflexion, ceremonial prohibitions and ritualistic notions of cleanness should disappear before the Christian insistence on the internal elements in religion. There are certain survivals of such notions even now, and ceremoniaUsm is not extirpated. But its scope is very narrow, and it is the custom to explain such ritual regulations as survive, on grounds that accord better with the spirit of Christianity and the ideas of civilized society. A. W. F. Blunt.
Clement
The name of a fellow-worker with St. Paul (). There are no sufilcient grounds for identifying him with Clement, bishop of Rome, the writer of the EpisUe to the Church of Corinth.
3. G. Taskee.
Cleopas
Only ; whether to be identified with Clopas of and Alphseus of etc., is a matter of dispute.
Cleopatra
1. Adaughter of Ptolemy Epiphanes. She married in B.C. 173 her own brother Ptolemy Philometor (Ad. Esther 11). and afterwards her second brother Ptolemy Physcon (Li v. xlv. 13, Epit. 69; Justin, xxxviii. 8). She greatly favoured the Jews in Egypt (Jos. c. Apimi. ii. 5), and encouraged Onias iv. in the erection of the temple at Leontopolis (Jos. Ant. xiii. iii. 2). 2. A daughter of Ptolemy Philometor. In B.C. 150 she was given in marriage by her father to Alexander Balas (1 Maccabees 10:57, 58; Jos. Ant. xiii. iv. 1). When Balas was driven into Arabia, she became (B.C. 146), at her father’s bidding, the wife of his rival, Demetrius Nikator (1 Maccabees 11:12; Jos. Ant. xni. iv. 7; Liv. Epit. 52).
Cloke
(AV and RV, but Amer. RV ‘cloak’). See Dress, § 4.
Clopas
Clopas (AV Cleophas) ia named only in . See Alph^us and Brethren of the Lord.
Closet
The Gr. word so rendered in NT properly denotes ‘a store-chamber’ as RV, then any inner or more private room as opposed to the Uvlngroom; so . RV ‘inner-chamber.’ Cf. 1 K . lit. ‘a chamber within a chamber,’ and House, § 2. For see Driver, Joel and Amos, in loc.
A. R. S. Kennedy.
Clothes, Clothing
See Dress.
Cloud
In Scripture, as with us, the clouds are the visible masses of aqueous vapour, darkening the heavens, sources of rain and fertility, telling the present state of the weather or indicating a coming change. They serve also for figures of instability and transitoriness (). calamity (). the gloom of old age (). great height (). immense numbers (). The following points should be noted. 1. The poetic treatment in Job. The waters are bound up securely in the clouds, so that the rain does not break through (26)) ; when the ocean issues from chaos like a new-born child, God wraps it in the swaddling-bands of clouds (38) the laws of their movements are impenetrable mysteries (36 37 38). 2. The cloud indicates the presence of God, and at the same time veils the insufferable brightness of His glory ( etc.). Similarly the bright cloud betokens the Father’s presence, and His voice is heard speaking from it (). But a dark cloud would effectually hide Him, and thus furnishes a figure for displeasure (). At the cloud is an angel’s glorious robe. 3. The pillar of cloud and Are directs and protects the journeyings of the Exodus (, ). This corresponds with the fact that armies and caravans have frequently been directed by signals of fire and smoke. 4. The cloud alternates with the cherub as Jahweh’s chariot (. ). Indeed, the cherub is a personification of the thunder-cloud. The Messianic people and the Messiah Himself sweep through the heaven with clouds (. . ), or on the clouds () hence the later Jews identified Anani ( = ‘He of the clouds,’ ) with the Messiah. The saints are to be caught up in the clouds (). The Messiah’s throne is a white cloud (). 6. In the ‘Cloud Vision’ of Apoc. Bar 53-73, the cloud from which the twelve streams of water pour is ‘the wide world which the Almighty created’ — a very peculiar piece of imagery.
J. Taylor.
Clout
‘old cast clouts.’ The word is still used in Scotland for cloths (as in ‘dish-clout’), but for clothes only contemptuously. Formerly there was no contempt in the word. Sir John Mandeville (Travels, Macmillan’s ed. p. 75) says, ‘And in that well she washed often-time the clouts of her son Jesu Christ.’ The verb ‘to clout’ occurs in . of shoes (Amer. RV ‘patched’).
Club
Only RV, for AV ‘dart.’ The stout shepherd’s club, with its thick end probably studded with nails, with which he defended his flock against wild beasts, is rendered by ‘rod’ in and elsewhere.
Cnidus
A city of Carta, in S.W. of Asia Minor. It was the dividing point between the S. and W. coasts of Asia Minor, and at this point St. Paul’s ship changed its course in the voyage to Rome (). It contained Jewish inhabitants as early as the 2nd cent. B.C. (1 Mac ). and had the rank of a free city. A. Soutee.
Coal
Mineral coal was unknown in Bible times. Wherever ‘coal’ (or ‘coals’) is mentioned, therefore, we must in the great majority of cases understand wood or charcoal. Several species of wood used for heating purposes are named in . to which adds ‘coals of broom’ (RVm). In two cases, however, the ‘live coal’ of Isaiah’s vision () and the ‘coals’ on which was ‘a cake baken’ for Elijah (). the Heb. word denotes a hot stone (so RVm — see Bread). The charcoal was generally burned in a brasier ( ff. RV, AV ‘hearth’) or chafing-dish, the ‘pan of fire’ of Zee RV. See, further, House, § 7.
Coal, or rather charcoal, supplies several Scripture metaphors, the most interesting of which is illustrated by the expression of the wise woman of Tekoa, ‘thus shall they quench my coal that is left’ (). By this she means, as shown by the following words, the death of her son and the extinction of her family, an idea elsewhere expressed as a putting out of one’s lamp (). A. R. S. Kennedy.
Coast
Coast, now confined to the shore of the sea, was formerly used of the border between two countries, or the neighbourhood of any place. When St. Paul ‘passed through the upper coasts’ (). he was in the interior of Asia Minor. Herod ‘slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof ‘(Mt2’«).
Coat
See Dress, §§ 2 (d), 4.
Coat of Mail
See Armour, Arms, § 2 (c).
Cock
, . , . , , , . Cocks and hens were probably unknown in Palestine until from two to three centuries before Christ’s time. In the famous painted tomb at Marissa (see Mareshah), a work of about B.C. 200, we have the cock depicted. Cocks and hens were introduced^from Persia. The absence of express mention of them"from the Law, and the fact that it is a ‘clean’ bird, have made it possible for the Jews for many centuries to sacrifice these birds on the eve of the Day of Atonement — a cock for each male and a hen for each female in the household. Talmudic tradition finds references to the cock in . . and . but all these are very doubtful. The ‘cock -crowing’ was the name of the 3rd watch of the night, just before the dawn, in the time of our Lord. During this time the cocks crow at irregular intervals. E. W. G. Masterman.
Cockatrice
See Serpent.
Cocker
Sirach 30:9 ‘Cocker thy child, and he shall make thee afraid,’ that is ‘pamper.’ Cf. Shaks. King i. 70 —
‘Shall a beardless boy, A cocker’d silken wanton, brave our fields?’
and Hull (1611), ‘No creatures more cocker their young than the Asse and the Ape.’ The word is not found eariier than the 15th century. Its origin is obscure.