Criticism – Cutting Off from the People

Criticism

Biblical criticism is divided into two branches: (1) Lower Criticism, which is concerned with the original text of Scripture — the Hebrew of the OT and the Greek of the NT, by reference to (a) the external evidence of MSS, versions, and citations in ancient literature, and ib) the intrinsic evidence of the inherent probability of one reading as compared with a rival reading, judged by such rules as that preference should be given to the more difficult reading, the shorter reading, the most characteristic reading, and the reading which accounts for the alternative readings (see Text or the NT); (2) Higher Criticism, which is concerned with the authorship, dates, and circumstances of origin, doctrinal character and tendency, historicity, and other such questions concerning the books of Scripture, as far as these matters can be determined by a careful examination of their contents, comparing the various sections of each one with another, or comparing the books in their entirety with one another, and bringing all possible light to bear upon them from history, literature, antiquities, monuments, etc.

The title of the second branch of criticism is often misunderstood in popular usage. The Lower Criticism being little heard of except among experts, while the Higher Criticism is often mentioned in public, the true eompanson suggested is not perceived, and the latter phrase is taken to indicate a certain arrogance on the part of advanced critics, and contempt for the older scholarship. Then the word ‘criticiam’ is also taken in its popular sense as implying captiousness and faultfinding. Further, the most starthng, and therefore the most generally observed, results of criticism being destructive of preconceived notions, criticism itself has been regarded as a negative process, and even aa an attack on the Bible It is not to he denied that there are Higher Critics whose arguments may be construed in this way; but these are a minority, and there are also Higher Critics who are not only loyal to the Divine revelation m Scripture, but whose work may be described as largely constructive. Higher criticism itself is neutral; it has no bias; it is a scientific process. The champions of accepted views are compellea to use this process when arguing with scholars who take up positioiis with which they disagree. But, strictly speaking, it is not a controversial weapon. It is a powerful instrument for ascertaining facts aoout the history of the Bible. Seeing, however, that a certain amount of odium has been attached to the title — however unwarrantably— ;perhap3 it would be better to substitute a phrase less liable to misinterpretation— such aa the expression ‘Historical^ method.’ For in point of fact it is in the application of this method, which has been found so fruitful in other regions of study, to the Bible, that the actual work of the Higher Criticism is carried on. The several parts of Scripture are viewed in their places in the total development of the literature to which they belong, with regard to the spirit of the times in which they were produced, and as themselves throwing light on the problem of their own origin and purpose. In place of the external evidence of testimony conjoined to mere tradition, attention is now given more carefully^ to the internal evidenceof literary and doctrinal characteristics.

Traces of the ‘Higher’ Criticism are to be discovered among the Fathers, e.g. in Origen with his discussion of the authorship of Hebrews, in Dionysius of Alexandria’s critical objections to the ascription of the Revelation to the author of the Fourth Gospel, etc. It was revived at the Renaissance by Reuchlin and Erasmus, and it was fearlessly pursued by Martin Luther. But the scientific development of the method begins with MichaeUs (1750) and Semler (1771), especially the latter, for MichaeUs did not fully develop his critical views till he issued the 4th ed. of his Introduction to the NT (1788). Eichhorn went further in raising a criticism of the NT Canon (1804), and was opposed by Hug, a Roman Catholic writer, in a very scholarly work. A little later came de Wette (1826), who pursued the new critical method with moderation and great precision of scholarship. Credner followed on similar lines (1836). Meanwhile Guericke, Olshausen, and Neander opposed the contemporary trend of criticism. A new departure was taken by Ferdinand Christian Baur in 1831, who introduced the ‘tendency’ criticism, the result of which has come to be known as the ‘Ttibingen hypothesis,’ according to which there was a sharp division in the early Church between St. Paul and the twelve Apostles, and which regarded the several NT books as in some cases inspired by the tendency of one or other of these parties, and as in other cases written with a view to effect a reconciliation between them in the interest of a subsequent Catholic unity. Zeller (1842) and Schwegler (1846) followed on the same hnes. A little later (1850) one of Baur’s disciples, Albrecht Ritschl, threw a bombshell into the Tubingen camp by starting from the same position as his master, but advancing to very different conclusions. The ‘Tubingen hypothesis was advocated in England by S. Davidson; but its extreme positions have been given up by most scholars, although it had a later representative in Hilgenfeld, and its spirit has been continued in Pfleiderer.

Meanwhile new problems have emerged, represented in a free critical manner by the Holtzmanns, Weizsacker, Wernle, etc., while the Ritschhan school has been brought down to recent times in Harnack, JOlicher, etc. A line of negative criticism, first seen in Bruno Bauer (1850), who gave up all historicity in the Gospels, and denied the genuineness of any of St. Paul’s Epistles, was revived during the latter part of the 19th cent, in Holland, by Loman and Steck. Schmledel took up an extreme negative position with regard to the Gospels, but he has since modified it, and Van Manen has argued against the genuineness of all St. Paul’s Epistles. In the second half of the last cent, the historicity of the Gospels and the genuineness of all the Pauline Epistles were maintained by Lightfoot, Westcott, Hort, and others in the first rank of scholarship. Zahn, with great learning, argues for a conservative position, and the tendency of the mediating school represented by Harnack and Jillicher is to admit the genuineness of much the greater part of the NT, the exceptions with this school being especially Eph., 2 Thess., the Pastorals, 1 and 2 Peter, James. There is a tendency to connect the Fourth Gospel more closely with St. John, even among those who do not attribute it immediately to the pen of the Apostle.

Criticism came later into contact with the OT; but here it has been much more revolutionary, and not only extremists but nearly all scholars of eminence have now come to agreement with regard to the main points of the new position. It may be said to have commenced with Lessing and Herder in their literary treatment of Scripture; but this did not seriously affect the historical position. That was first attacked on modern critical lines by Vatke early in the 19th cent., but his work met with universal disapproval, due in a great measure to its difficult Hegelianism. We come to more intelligible positions in Ewald, the first edition of whose History of Israel appeared in 1843-52, and contained criticism of authorities, four of which he distinguished in the Pentateuch. Then K. H. Graf (1866), following hints of Reuss, dropped in the lecture-room, but never published by that cautious scholar, put forth the hypothesis which became the basis of the subsequently developed theory of the early history of Israel, and thus gave rise to the phrase ‘the Grafian hypothesis,’ according to which the Priestly legislation of the Pentateuch came later than Deuteronomy, and was only incorporated with the earlier work of the Deuteronomist after the Exile. Meanwhile Colenso was working at the historical difficulties of the Pentateuch, and he.was followed by Kuenen, whose Religion of Israel (1869-70) drew attention to the great 8th cent, prophets as affording the true basis of that religion, rather than the Pentateuch which is later in date, and the references of which to earlier times can be best appreciated after a study of the prophets. This study of the prophets, as the key to the OT, was greatly promoted in England by Robertson Smith, who also introduced the newer views of the OT generally to English readers. Wellhausen’s History of Israel (1878) worked out a view of the early history, on the basis of the analysis of the documents along the lines laid down by Graf, with such clearness and force that his positions have come to be accepted by most OT scholars, especially as they were subsequently more fully developed (1884). Reuss, after keeping silence on the subject for half a century, published his own views on the OT (1879), and these also tended to confirm the Grafian theory. Even Franz Delitzsch, after long maintaining a conservative standpoint, moved at last a good way towards the accepted theory, and thus proved his openness of mind and loyalty to truth. Less radical positions than that of Kuenen and Wellhausen have been defended by Dillmann, Schrader, NBldeke, Strack, Ryssel, Kittel. On the other hand, we see in Duhm, among the more recent critics, an advance of disintegrating criticism, especially with regard to the prophets; and a quite unique attitude is taken up by Cheyne. But English scholars are more in agreement with the views of Driver and G. Adam Smith, who accept the main positions of Wellhausen and assign a primary place to the prophets as the chief exponents of the higher religion of Israel, in which the world possesses a genuine revelation of the mind and will of God of the highest value for all ages.

W. F. Adeney.

Crocodile

(l) HDj/S(Mn, Ps74», Isaiah 27:1. Job 41:1 f.: The last reference is almost certainly to the crocodile, which is adopted in RVra. See Leviathan. (2) hayyath qSneh, ‘the wild beast of the reeds,’ Psalms 68:30 RV, is thought by many to be the crocodile or the hippopotamus as symbolizing Egypt. (3) In Jeremiah 14:6 tannlm is in RVm ‘crocodiles.’ See Dhagon. For ‘land crocodile’ see Lizard. The crocodile probably still exists in the Nahr ez-Zerka, S. of Mount Carmel, called by Pliny the Crocodile River. It is supposed to have been brought there by some Egyptian settlers. A dead crocodile was brought from there to the late Rev. J. Zeller of Nazareth. Herr Schumacher reports that he saw one there, and quite recently a number of crocodile’s eggs were brought from this river and sold in Jerusalem. A stuffed specimen is in the PEF museum, London.

E. W. G. Masterman. CROSS. — The cross in its literal sense is dealt with under Crucifixion, but there are certain spiritual uses of the word in the JfT that call for separate consideration.(1) It is a symbol of self-sacrifice. — According to the Gospels, Jesus on at least three occasions affirmed the necessity for those who would follow Him of taking up the cross (Matthew 10:38; Mark 8:34 16 = Luke 9:23; [Mark 10:21 only in AV]; Luke 14:27). The words imply a prophetic anticipation of His own experience on Calvary ; but even although on Christ’s earliest use of them this special application was hidden from His disciples (cf. Matthew 16:21 20:19), the figure of bearing one’s cross would convey a quite intelligible meaning. In Galilee multitudes had been crucified after the rebellion under Judas the Gaulonite (Jos. Ant. xvn. x. 10, BJ ii. v. 2) ; in Jerusalem, as we see from the execution of two robbers side by side with Jesus, a crucifixion must have been an ordinary incident of the administration of Roman law. And as it was usual to compel a crudariits to carry to the place of execution the transverse beam (patibtdum) of his own cross, Christ’s figure would have a meaning as plain as it was vivid . But , unlike the wretched aruciarius. His disciples of their own free will were to take up the cross and follow Him.

(2) It is a thing of shame. — The author of Hebrews tells us how Jesus ‘endured the cross, despising shame’ (12:2). Both to the Roman and to the Jew the death of the cross was the most shameful death a man could die — to the former because reserved by Roman usage for slaves, foreigners, or desperate criminals; to the latter because it came under the curse denounced by the Jewish Law upon any one whose dead body hung upon a tree (Deuteronomy 21:23; cf. Galatians 3:13). To Jew and Gentile alike this was the great ‘stumbling-block of the cross’ (Galatians 5:11. 1 Corinthians 1:23). And even St. Paul himself regards ‘the death of the cross’ as the very lowest point in Christ’s long pathway of humiliation (Philippians 2:8).

(3) There are certain theological uses of the word peculiar to the Pauline writings. St. Paul makes the cross a summary of the gospel. Thus for ‘the preaching of the gospel’ in 1 Corinthians 1:17 he substitutes in v. 18 ‘the word of the cross,’ and in v. 23 ‘the preaching of Christ crucified’ (cf . 2:2). Again in Galatians 6:12 he speaks of suffering persecution ‘for the cross of Christ,’ where the meaning evidently is ‘for the confession of faith in the Christian gospel.’ And when he glories in ‘the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ’ (v. 14). the cross is used, as the clauses following show, to epitomize the saving work of Jesus both for us and in us.

(4) Further, in the Pauline theology the cross is set forth as the great instrument of reconciliation. It is ‘through the blood of his cross’ that Christ has eflected a reconciliation between God and man (Colossians 1:20 ff.). He took out of the way the bond written in ordinances that was against us, ‘nailing it to the cross’ (2:14). It is ‘through the cross’ that He has reconciled the Gentile and the Jew, abolishing that ‘law of commandments’ which rose between them like a middle wall of partition (Ephesians 2:14–16). And there are glimpses of a still wider reconciliation accomplished by Jesus through His cross — a reconciliation of all things unto God the Father, whether they be things upon the earth or things in the heavens (Colossians 1:20. cf. Ephesians 1:10).

(5) Once more, the cross is to St. Paul the symbol of a mystical union with Christ Himself. In the great figure of the Gospels (Matthew 10:38))) cross-bearing stands for the imitation of Christ. St. Paul goes deeper, and sees in the cross a crucifixion with Christ from which there springs a possession of the indwelling life of Christ (Galatians 2:20). The old man is crucified (Romans 6). that a new man may rise from the dead (cf. v. 4). The flesh is crucified, with its passions and lusts (Galatians 5:24), that the Christian may live and walk by the Spirit (v. 25). And yet this mysticism of the cross never causes the Apostle to lose sight of the cross as the means of an objective redemption. On the contrary, he regards the two ideas as inseparably connected; and, glorying in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, does so because through it (o) the world — the sphere of external ordinances — is crucified unto him ; and (6) he himself is crucified unto the world (Galatians 6:14). J. C. Lambert.

Crow

Crow occurs once in Apocr. (Baruch 6:54). where the helplessness of idols is illustrated by the remark that ‘they are as crows between heaven and earth.’ See also Raven.

Crown

1. In the OT.— The word represents several Heb. terms with distinct meanings. (1) z5r, properly an edge or border, with the suggestion of a twisted or wreathed appearance. It occurs only in Exodus 25:11 and frequently). It is always of gold, and in the furniture of the Tabernacle surrounds the ark, the table of shew-bread and its border, the altar of incense. RVm gives as alternative renderings ‘rim,’ ‘moulding.’ Its purpose seems to have been ornamental merely. — (2) rCezer, properly ‘mark of separation or consecration’(fr. nazar’ to separate, consecrate’; whence nSzir=‘Nazirite’). Originally it was no more than a fillet to confine hair that was worn long (W. R. Smith, BS^ p. 483). It is used of the crown set upon the forehead of the high priest (Exodus 29:6 etc.) — a plate of pure gold with the engraving ‘Holy to J*‘(39:30, cf. Leviticus 8:9). and also of the crown worn by Heb. kings (2 Samuel 1:10. 2 K H’2). In both cases it was the symbol of consecration. — (3) kether, similar in meaning to (2) but without the idea of consecration, is used in Est. (1:11 2:17 6:8) to denote the diadem of a Persian king or queen. — (4)’ aiSrah, the word that is most frequent and of the most general significance. It is applied to the crown worn by kings, whether Jewish (2 Samuel 12:30 etc.) or foreign (1 Chronicles 20:2. Esther 8:15 [cf. 6:8)). to the wreath worn at banquets (Isaiah 28:1, 3. Ezekiel 23:42) but also in a fig. sense, as when, e.g. a virtuous woman is called her husband’s crown (Proverbs 12:4). a hoary head the crown of old age (16:31). the Lord of hosts the crown of His people (Isaiah 28:5).) — (5) godhqddh is the crown or top of the head, as in the expression ‘from the sole of his foot even unto his crown’ (Job 2:7) cf. Genesis 49:26. Deuteronomy 33:20 etc.— The vb. ‘to crown’ is comparatively rare in the OT: ‘atar (corresponding to (4) above) is found in Psalms 8:5 65:11 103:4, Song of Songs 3:11, Isaiah 23:8; kathar (corresp. to (3)) in Proverbs 14:18; nisar (corresponding to (2)) in Nahum 3:17.

2. In the NT. — In AV ‘crown’ represents two Gr. words: (1) Stephanos (whence Stephanos, ‘to crown’), (2) diadema; the former being the badge of merit or victory, the latter (found only in Revelation 12:3 13:1 19:12) the mark of royalty. ‘This distinction, though not strictly observed in LXX, is properly maintained in RV, where (2) is in each case rendered’ diadem.’ The Stephanos (properly ‘wreath’ = Lat. corona) was the garland given as a prize to the victors in the games (1 Corinthians 9:25; cf. 2 Timothy 2:5). It is the word applied to our Lord’s ‘crown of thorns’ (Matthew 27:29. Mark 15:17. John 19:2, 5). It is used figuratively of the ‘crown of righteousness’ (2 Timothy 4:8). ‘of life’ (James 1:12. Revelation 2:10). ‘of glory’ (1 Peter 5:4). St. Paul applies it to his converts as being’ his joy and reward (Philippians 4:1 1 Thessalonians 2:19) and in Rev. it is employed in various symbolical connexions (4:4, 10 6 9 12 14). J. C. Lambert.

Crucifixion

1 . Its nature . — Crucifixion denotes a form of execution in which the condemned person was affixed in one way or another to a cross (Lat. crux) and there left to die. The Gr. term rendered ‘cross’ in the Eng. NT is stauros (s(auroS=‘crucify’), which has a wider application than we ordinarily give to ‘cross,’ being used of a single stake or beam as well as of a cross composed of two beams. The crucifixion of living persons does not meet us on OT ground (unless it be in Ezra 6:11; see RV), though death by hanging does (Esther 7:10. The slauroo of LXX here renders the Heb. talah = ‘to hang’); but the hanging up of a dead body, especially on a tree, is familiar (Joshua 10; ct. 1 Samuel 31:10. 2 Samuel 4:12 21:12), and is sanctioned by the Law (Deuteronomy 21:22). with the proviso that a body thus hung, as something accursed, must be removed and buried before nightfall (v. 23). This enactment explains John 19:31. Galatians 3:13. as well as the reff. in the NT to the cross as a tree (Acts 5:30 lO"‘IS^s, 1 Peter 2:24).

2. Its origin and use. — The origin of crucifixion is traced to the Pheenicians, from whom it passed to many other nations, including’,both Greeks and Romans. Among the latter it was exceedingly common, but was confined almost exclusively to the punishment of slaves, foreigners, or criminals of the lowest class, being regarded as incompatible with the dignity of any Roman citizen (cf. CSc. in Verr. i. 5, v. 61, 66). This explains why, as tradition affirms, St. Paul was beheaded, while St. Peter and other Apostles, like the Master Himself, were put to death on the cross.

3. Forms of the cross. — The primitive form was the crux simplex— Si single post set upright in the earth, to which the victim was fastened; or a sharp stake on which he was impaled. The Roman cross was more elaborate, consisting of two beams, which, however, might be put together in different ways. Three shapes are distinguished: (1) The crux commissa (T), shaped like a capital T, and commonly known as St. Anthony’s cross; (2) the crux immissa (+), the form with which we are most familiar; (3) the crux decussata (X), shaped like the letter X, and known as St. Andrew’s cross. Early Christian tradition affirms that it was on (2) that Jesus died ie.g. Iren. Hcer. ii. 24, § 4; Justin, Trypho, 91); and this is confirmed by the statements of the Gospels as to the ‘title’ that was set above His head (Matthew 27:37. Mark 15:26. Luke 23:38. John 19:19 f.).

4. Method and accompaniments of crucifixion .—These are very fully illustrated in the Gospel narratives of the death of Jesus, to which we shall now especially refer. Immediately after being condemned to the cross, a prisoner was brutally scourged. [In the case of Jesus the scourging appears to have taken place before His condemnation (John 19:1). and to have been intended by Pilate as a compromise with the Jews between the death sentence and a verdict of acquittal (Luke 23:22).) The cross-beam (patiiulum), not the whole cross, was then laid on his shoulders, and borne by him to the place of execution, while his titulus (John 19:19 f.: Gr. lidos, Eng. ‘title’) or tablet of accusation hung around his neck, or was carried before him by a herald. If it was only the patibulum that Jesus carried, the probable failure of His strength by the way, leading to the incident of Simon the Cyrenian (Matthew 27:32))). must be attributed not to the weight of His burden, but to sheer physical exhaustion aggravated by loss of blood through scourging, as well as to the anguish that pressed upon His soul.

Arrived at the place of execution, which both with the Romans and the Jews was outside of the city (see art. Golgotha), the condemned was stripped of his clothing by the soldiers detailed to carry out the sentence, who immediately appropriated it as their lawful booty (Matthew 27:35))). He was then laid on the ground, the cross-beam was thrust beneath his shoulders, and his hands were fastened to the extremities, sometimes with cords, but more usually, as in the case of Jesus (John 20:25. Lk 24; cf. Colossians 2:14). with nails. The beam was next raised into position and securely fixed to the upright already planted in the ground. On the upright was a projecting peg (sedile) astride of which the victim was made to sit, thereby relieving the strain on the pierced hands, which might otherwise have been torn away from the nails. Finally the feet were fastened to the lower part of the upright, either with nails (Luke 24:39 f.) or with cords.

The cross was not a lofty erection — much lower than it is usually represented in Christian art (cf. Matthew 27:48))). Hanging thus quite near the ground, Jesus, in the midst of His last agonies, was all the more exposed to the jeers and insults of the bystanders and passers-by. It was a custom in Jerusalem to provide some alleviation for the physical tortures and mental sufferings of the crucified by giving him a stupefying draught. This was offered to Jesus before He was nailed to the cross; but He refused to take it (Matthew 27:34). He would drink every drop of the cup that His Father had given Him, and go on to death with an unclouded consciousness. But for this we could hardly have had those ‘Seven Words from the Cross’ which come to us like the glorious rays that shoot from a sun sinking in awful splendour.

In crucifixion the pains of death were protracted long — sometimes for days. Even when the victims were nailed and not merely tied to the cross, it was hunger and exhaustion, not loss of blood, that was the direct cause of death. Sometimes an end was put to their sufferings by the crurifragium — the breaking of their legs by hammer-strokes. It is not likely that in ordinary circumstances the Jews would induce a Roman governor to pay any attention to the law of Deuteronomy 21:22 f.: But, as the day following our Lord’s crucifixion was not only a Sabbath, but the Sabbath of Passover week, Pilate was persuaded to give orders that Jesus and the two robbers crucified along with Him should be despatched by the crurifragium and their bodies removed (John 19:31). The soldiers broke the legs of the robbers first, but when they came to Jesus they found that He was already dead. One of them, either in sheer brutality or to make sure of His death, ran a spear into His side. The blood and water that gushed out (John 19:34. cf. 1 John 5:6, 8) have been held by some medical authorities to justify the opinion that the Saviour died of a broken heart. His death being certified, Joseph of Arimathsea, who had begged the body from Pilate, removed it from the cross and laid it in his own sepulchre (Matthew 27:57 ff.))).

J. C. Lambert.

Cruelty

The word ‘cruelty’ has neariy disappeared from our Bibles. The RV has introduced ‘rigour’ and ‘violence’ in its stead. However, many instances of cruelty remain in the OT records, and some of these seem to have the sanction of Scripture. Such passages as Deuteronomy 20:17. Joshua 6:21. 2 Samuel 12:31 no longer trouble the devout student of the Bible as they once did. He now recognizes the fact that in the Bible we have a faithful record of the slow evolution of spiritual ideals, and that the revelation of the NT brands as un-christian and inhuman many things that were written by the ancient scribes and some things that were done by ancient saints. The spirit of Elijah may not be the spirit of Christ (Luke 9:55). Cruelty is un-Christian; kindness is the law of the Christian life.

D. A. Hates.

Cruse

See Hohbe, § 9. -

Crystal

See Jewels and Precious Stones.

Cub

Cub in Ezekiel 30:5 is almost certainly a corruption of Lub (i.e. Lybia), as was read by LXX. The ‘Libya’ of AV is a mistranslation of Put (see RV). Cf. Nahum 3:9, where Lybians are mentioned along with Cush (Ethiopia), Egypt, and Put, as here; also 2 Chronicles 12:3 16:8.

Cubit

See Weights and Meashbes.

Cttckow

Cttckow (shachaph, Leviticus 11:16, Deuteronomy 14:15. RV ‘seamew,’ following LXX). — Although cuckoos are common in Palestine, and their voices may be heard all over the land in the spring, yet there is good reason for rejecting this translation. The Heb. root implies ‘leanness,’ and the ‘unclean’ bird referred to must have been some kind of gull. E. W. G. Masterman.

Cumi

See Talitha Ctnai.

Cummi

Cummi lf. — The seed of an umbelliferous plant, the Cuminum cyminum (syriacum), widely cultivated in and around Palestine. It is used to flavour dishes, and, more particularly, bread; in flavour and appearance it resembles carraway; it has long been credited with medicinal properties; it certainly is a carminative. It is even now beaten out with rods (Isaiah 28:27). Tithes of cummin were paid by the Jews (Matthew 23:23).

E. W. G. Masterman.

Cunning

As a subst. ‘cunning’ in AV means either skill or knowledge; as an adj. either skilful or wise (we cannot say knowing, for that adj. has also degenerated). It is the pres. participle of the Anglo- Sax, verb cunnan, which meant both ‘to know’ and ‘to be able.’ In the Preface to the Wyclifite version of 1388 we read of ‘the Holy Spyrit, author of all wisdom and cunnynge and truth.’

Cup

1. In OT the rendering of various words, the precise distinction between which, either as to form or use, is unknown to us. The usual word is kss, the ordinary drinking-vessel of rich (Genesis 40:11, 13, 2) and poor (2 Samuel 12:3) alike, the material of which varied, no doubt, with the rank and wealth of the owner. Joseph’s divining cup (.gabhia’ , Genesis 44:2 ff.) was of silver, and, we may infer, of elaborate workmanship, since the same word is used for the bowls (AV) or cups (RV), i.e. the flower-shaped ornamentation, on the candlestick of the Tabernacle. That the gabhia’ was larger than the kBs is clear from Jeremiah 35:5. The kesavBth of 1 Chronicles 28:17 were more probably flagons, as RV in Exodus 25:29 37:16 (but Numbers 4:7 RV ‘cups’). The ‘aggan (Isaiah 22:24) was rather a basin, as Exodus 24:6. than a cup (EV).

In NT poterion is the corresponding name of the ordinary drinking-cup (water Matthew 10:42 etc., wine 23:25 etc.). The ‘cup of blessing’ (1 Corinthians 10:16) is so named from the kss habberakhah of the Jewish Passover (wh. see, also Eucharist).

2. The word ‘cup’ has received an extended figurative application in both OT and NT. (o) As in various other Uteratures, ‘cup’ stands, esp. in Psalms, for the happy fortune or experience of one’s earthly lot, mankind being thought of as receiving this lot from the hand of God, as the guest receives the wine-cup from the hand of his host (Psalms 16:5 23:5 73:10 etc.). But also, conversely, for the bitter lot of the wicked, Psalms 11:6 (cf (c) below), and in particular for the sufferings of Jesus Christ, Matthew 20, Mark 10:38, 39 li", Luke 22:42. jn igu. (6) Another figure is the ‘cup of salvation’ (lit. ‘of deliverances’), Psalms 116. The reference is to the wine of the thank-offerings, part of the ritual of which was the festal meal before J" (cf. vv.). (c) By a still bolder figure the punitive wrath of the offended Deity is spoken of as a cup which the guilty, Israelites and heathen alike, must drain to the dregs. So Jeremiah 25:15 ff. (the wine-cup [of] fury), Ezk 23:32–34. Isaiah 51:17 ff. (‘the cup of trembling,’ RV ‘staggering’), Zee 12:2 (RV ‘cup of reeling’), Psalms 75:8, Revelation 14:10 16:19 18:6, for all which see the commentaries, (d) Lastly, we have ‘the cup of consolation’ offered to the mourners after the funeral-rites, Jeremiah 16:7 (cf. Proverbs 31:6).

Cupbearer

An officer of considerable importance at Oriental courts, whose duty it was to serve the wine at the table of thejking. The first mention of this officer is in the story of Joseph (Genesis 40:1–15). where the term rendered butler in EV is the Heb. word which is rendered in other passages ‘cupbearer.’ The holder of this office was brought into confidential relations with the king, and must have been thoroughly trustworthy, as part of his duty was to guard against poison in the king’s cup. In some cases he was required to taste the wine before presenting it. The position of Nehemiah as cupbearer to Artaxerxes Longimanus was evidently high. Herodotus (iii. 34) speaks of the office at the court of Cambyses, king of Persia, as ‘an honour of no small account,’ and the narrative of Nehemiah shows the high esteem of the king, who is so solicitous for his welfare that he asks the cause of his sadness (2:2). The cupbearers among the officers of king Solomon’s household(1 K 10:5) impressed the queen of Sheba, and they are mentioned among other indications of the grandeur of his court, which was modelled upon courts of other Oriental kings.

Cupboard

Cupboard (1 Maccabees 15:32). A sideboard used for the display of gold and silver plate. This is the earliest meaning of ‘cupboard’; cf. Greene (1592), ‘Her mistress . . . set all her plate’on the cubboorde forshew.’

CURSE, — See Ban and ExcoMMnNiCATioN.

Curtain

See Tabernacle.

Cush

Cush as a personal name occurs only in the title of Psalms 7. He is described as a Benjamite, and was probably a follower of Saul who opposed David.

Cushan

Cushan (Habakkuk 3:7) = Arabian (?) Cush (wh. see).

Cushan-rishathaim

King of Mesopotamia, or Aram-naharaim, first of the oppressors of Israel, from whom Othniel. son of Kenaz. delivered them after eight years (Judges 3:8–10). It has been conjectured that he was a king of the Mitanni, whose territory once covered the district between the Euphrates and Habor, or that ‘Aram’ is a mistake for Edom, ‘Rishathaim’ for Resh-hatlemani, ‘chief of the Temanites.’ The name has not yet received any monumental explanation, and its nationality is unknown. C. H. W. Johns.

Cushi, Cushite

The word Cfishl occurs with the article in Numbers 12:1. 2 Samuel 18:21; without the article in Jeremiah 36:14. Zephaniah 1:1. 1. With the article it is probably merely an expression of nationality, ‘the Cushite’ (see Cush). It was looked upon as a disgrace that Moses should have married a Cushite. 2. Without the article the word is used merely as a proper name. It is borne by (1) the great-grandfather of Jehudi, the latter one of Jehoiakim’s courtiers (Jeremiah 36:14) (2) the father of the prophet Zephaniah (Zephaniah 1:1).

Cushion

See Pillow.

Custom

Custom (S) (Matthew 17:25. Romans 13:7) ‘receipt of custom’ (Matthew 9:9. Mark 2:14. Luke 5:27). — This is to be carefully distinguished from ‘tribute’ (wh. see). The customs were paid on the value of goods, in Galilee and Persea to the Herods, but in the Roman province of Judsea to the procurator as agent of the Roman government. The ‘receipt of custom’ was the collector’s office.

A. SOUTEB.

Cuth, Cuthah

One of the cities from which Sargon brought colonists to take the place of the Israelites whom he had deported from Samaria, b.c. 722 (2 Kings 17:24, 30). These colonists intermingled with the Israelite inhabitants who were left by Sargon; and their descendants, the Samaritans, were in consequence termed by the Jews ‘Cuthsans.’ According to the old Arabic geographers, Cuthah was situated not far from Babylon. This view is borne out by the Assyrian inscriptions, from which we learn that Kuti (or Kutu) was a city of Middle-Babylonia. It has now been identified with the modern Tell Ibrahim, N.E. of Babylon, where remains of the temple of Nergal (cf. v. 30) have been discovered.

Cutha

Cutha (1 Esdras 6:32). sons were among the Temple servants who returned from Babylon with Zerubbabel.

Cutting Off from the People

See Chimes AND Punishments, § 11.