David – Deal

David

(‘beloved’). The second and greatest of the kings of Israel ; the youngest of the eight sons of Jesse the Bethlehemite; he belonged to the tribe of Judah. The details of his life are gathered from 1 S 16’-1 K 2", 1 Chronicles 11:1 (besides some scattered notices in the earlier chapters of 1 Ch.), the Psalms which bear on this period, and Bk. vii of the Antiquities of Josephus, though this latter adds but little to our knowledge. It is necessary to bear in mind two points of importance in dealing with the records of the life of David: firstly, the Hebrew text is, in a number of cases, very corrupt (notably in the books of Samuel), and in not a few passages the Alexandrian (Greek) version is to be preferred; secondly, our records have been gathered together from a variety of sources, and therefore they do not present a connected whole; that they are for this reason sometimes at variance with each other stands in the natural order of things.

1. Early years. — David was a shepherd by calling, and he continued this occupation until he had reached full manhood; the courage and strength sometimes required for the protection of flocks make it clear that he was more than a mere youth when he first appeared upon the scene of public life (1 Samuel 17:34, 35). There are altogether three different accounts of David’s entry upon the stage of life.

(i) 1 Samuel 16:1–13. David is here represented as having been designated by Jahweh as Saul’s successor; Samuel is sent to Bethlehem to anoint him; all the seven sons of Jesse pass before the prophet, but the Spirit does not move him to anoint any of them ; in perplexity he asks the father if he has any more children, whereupon the youngest is produced, and Samuel anoints him. Graphic as the story Is, it strikes one as incomplete. Samuel does not even know of the existence of Jesse’s youngest son; the future king of Israel is introduced as a mere stripling whom nobody seems to know or care about, and he is left as abruptly as he is Introduced. From all we know of Israel’s early heroes, a man was not raised to be a leader of the people unless or until he had first proved himself in some way to be the superior of his fellows. It was, of course, different when the monarchy had been securely estaWished and the hereditary succession had come into vogue; though even then there were exceptions, e.g. in the case of Jehu. This was clearly so in the case of Saul, who had the reputation of being a ‘mighty man of valour’ (1 Samuel 9:2) and in the parallel case of the anointing of one to be king while the throne was still occupied, viz. Jehu, it is not an unknown man who is anointed (see 1 Kings 19:16. 2 Kings 9:3 ff.). ). The story, therefore, of David’s anointing by Samuel strikes one as being an incomplete fragment.

(ii) 1 Samuel 16. In this second account, the servants of Saul recommend that the king should send for someone who is a ‘cunning player on the harp,’ in order that by means of music the mental disorder from which he is suffering may be allayed. The son of Jesse is proposed, and forthwith sent for; when Saul is again attacked by the malady — said to be occasioned by ‘an evil spirit from the Lord’ — David plays upon the harp, and Saul ‘is refreshed’ in spirit. In this account David is represented as a grown man, for it is said that Saul made him his armour-bearer.

(iii) 1 Samuel 17. The Greek version omits a large part of this account (vv. 12–31 which seems itself to have been put together from different sources. According to it, David’s first appearance was on the eve of a battle between the Israelites and the Philistines. His father is in the habit of sending him to the Israelite camp with provisions for his three eldest brothers, who are among the warriors of the Israelite army ; on one such occasion he finds the camp in consternation on account of the defiance of a Philistine hero, the giant Goliath. This man offers to fight in single combat with any Israelite who will come out and face him, but in spite of the high reward offered by the king to any one who will slay him — namely, great riches and the king’s daughter in marriage — nobody appears to answer the challenge. David gathers these details from different people in the camp, and, feeling sure of the|help of Jahweh, determines to fight the giant. He communicates his purpose to Saul, who at first discourages him, but on seeing his firmness and confidence arms him and bids him go forth in the name of Jahweh. David, however, finds the armour too cumbersome, and discards it, taking instead nothing but five smooth stones and a sUng. After mutual defiance, David slings one of his stones; the giant is hit, and falls down dead; David rushes up, draws the sword of the dead warrior, and cuts off his head. Thereupon panic takes hold of the Philistine host, and they flee, pursued by the Israelites, who thus gain a complete victory (see Elhanan).

It is worthy of note that each of these three accounts which introduce David to history connects with him just those three characteristics which subsequent ages loved to dwell upon. The first presents him as the beloved of Jahweh (cf. his name, ‘beloved’), who was specially chosen, the man after God’s own heart, the son of Jesse; the second presents him as the harpist, who was known in later ages as the ‘sweet psalmist of Israel’; while the third, which is probably the nearest to actual history, presents him as the warriorhero, just as, in days to come, men would have pictured him whose whole reign from beginning to end was characterized by war.

David’s victory over Goliath had a twofold result; firstly, the heroic deed called forth the admiration, which soon became love, of the king’s son Jonathan; a covenant of friendship was made between the two, in token of which, and in ratification of which, Jonathan took off his apparel and armour and presented David with them. This friendship lasted till the death of Jonathan, and David’s pathetic lamentation over him (2 Samuel 1:25–27) points to the reality of their love. But secondly, it had the effect of arousing Saul’s envy ; a not wholly unnatural feeling, considering the estimation in which David was held by the people in consequence of his victory; the adage — assuredly one of the most ancient authentic fragments of the history of the time — ‘Saul hath slain his thousands. And. David his ten thousands was not flattering to one who had, in days gone by, been Israel’s foremost warrior. For the present, however, Saul conceals his real feelings (1 Samuel 18:10, 11 are evidently out of place), intending to rid himself of David in such a way that no blame would seem to attach itself to him. In fulfilment of his promise to the slayer of Goliath, he .expresses his intention of giving -his daughter Michal fo David tor his wife; but as David brings no dowry, — according to Hebrew custom, — ‘Saul lays upon him conditions of a scandalous character (1 Samuel 18). hoping that, in attempting to fulfil them, David may lose his life. The scheme falls, and David receives Michai to wife. A further attempt to be rid of David is frustrated by Jonathan (19:1–7). and at last Saul himself tries to kill him by throwing a javelin at him whilst playing on his harp; again he fails, for David nimbly avoids the javelin, and escapes to his own house. Thither Saul sends men to kill him, but with the help of his wife he again escapes, and flees to Ramah to seek counsel from Samuel. On Samuel’s advice, apparently, he goes to Jonathan by stealth to see if there is any possibility of a reconciliation with the king; Jonathan does his best, but in vain (20:1–42). and David reahzes that his life will be in danger so long as he is anywhere within reach of Saul or his emissaries.

2. David as an outlaw.— As in the case of the earlier period of David’s life, the records of this second period consist of a number of fragments from different sources, not very skilfully put together. We can do no more here than enumerate briefly the various localities in which David sought refuge from Saul’s vindictiveness, pointing out at the same time the more important episodes of his outlaw life.

David flies first of all to Nob, the priestly city; his stay here is, however, of short duration, for he is seen by Doeg, one of Saul’s followers. Taking the sword of his late antagonist, Goliath, which was wrapped in a cloth behind the ephod, he makes for Gath, hoping to find refuge on foreign soil; but he is recognized by the Philistines, and fearing that they would take vengeance on him for killing their hero Goliath, he simulates madness (ct. Psalms 34 title), — a disease which by the Oriental (even to-day by the Bedouin) is looked upon as something sacrosanct. By this means he finds it easy enough to make his escape, and comes to the ‘cave of Adullam.’ Here his relations come to him, and he gathers together a band of desperadoes, who make him their captain. Finding that this kind of life is unfitted for his parents, he takes them to Mizpeh and confides them to the care of the king of Moab. On his return he is advised by the prophet Gad (doubtless because he had found out that Saul had received information of David’s whereabouts) to leave the stronghold; he therefore takes refuge in the forest of Hereth. While hiding here, news is brought to him that the Philistines are fighting against Keilah; he hastens to succour the inhabitants by attacking the Philistines; these he overcornes with great slaughter, and thereupon he takes up his abode in Keilah. In the meantime Saul’s spies discover the whereabouts of the fugitive, and David, fearing that the men of KeUah will deliver him up to his enemy, escapes with his followers to the hill-country in the wilderness of Ziph. A very vigorous pursuit is now undertaken by Saul, who seems determined to catch the elusive fugitive, and the chase is carried on among the wilds of Ziph, Moon, and Engedi. [Some portions of the narrative here seem to be told twice over with varying detail (cf. 1 Samuel 23:19 ff. with 26:1 ff.: and 24:1 ff. with 26:4 ff.).) It is during these wanderings that Saul falls into the power of David, but is magnanimously spared. The episode connected with David’s dealings with Nabal, and his taking Abigail and Ahinoam for his wives, also falls within this period (1 Samuel 24. 25. 26). At one time there seemed to be some hope of reconciliation between Saul and David (26:24, 25), but evidently this was short-lived, for soon afterwards David escapes once more, and comes with six hundred followers to the court of Achish, king of Gath. This time Achish welcomes him as an ally and gives him the city of Ziklag. David settles in Ziklag, and stays there for a year and four months (27:7), occupying the time by fighting against the enemies of his country, the Geshurites, Amalekites, etc. At the end of this time, war again breaks out between the Israelites and the Philistines. The question arises whether David shall join with the forces of Achish against the Israelites; David himself seems willing to fight on the side of the Philistines (29:8). but the princes of the Philistines, rightly or wrongly, suspect treachery on his part, and at the request of Achish he returns to Ziklag. On his arrival here he finds that the place has been sacked by the Amalekites, and forthwith he sets out to take revenge. This is ample and complete; part of the spoil which he acquires he sends as a present to the elders of Judah and to his friends (30:26–31), a fact which shows that there was a party favourable to him in Judah; and this was possibly the reason and justification of the mistrust of the Philistine princes just mentioned. In the meantime the war between Israel and the Philistines ends disastrously for the former, and Saul and Jonathan are slain. David receives news of this during his sojourn in Ziklag. With this ends the outlaw life of David, for, leaving Ziklag, he comes to Hebron, where the men of Judah anoint him king (2 Samuel 2:4).

3. David as king. — (a) Internal affairs. — For the first seven years of his reign David made Hebron his capital. In spite of his evident desire to make peace with the followers of Saul (2 Samuel 9), it was but natural that a vigorous attempt should be made to uphold the dynasty of the late king, at all events in Israel, as distinct from Judah (see Ishbosheth). It is therefore just what^we should expect when we read that ‘there was long war between the house of Saul and the house of David’ (3:1). The final victory lay with David, and in due time the elders of Israel came. to him in Hebron and anointed him their Idng. As ruler over the whole land David realized the need of a more central capital; he fixed on Jerusalem, which he conquered from the Jebusites, and founded the royal city on Mt. Zion, ‘the city of David’ (S’). Thither he brought up the ark with great ceremony (6), intending to build a permanent temple for it (7:2), but the prophet Nathan declares to him that this is not Jahweh’s will. David’s disappointment is, however, soothed, for the prophet goes on to tell him that though he may not build this house, Jahweh will establish the house of David (i.e. in the sense of lineage) for ever (v. 11). David then enters in before Jahweh and offers up his thanksgiving (VV.18-29).

One of the darker traits of David’s character is illustrated by the detailed account of the Bathsheba episode (ll^ 12:25) so far from seeking to curb bis passion for her on hearing that she is married, he finds ways and means of ridding himself of the husband, after whose death Bathsheba becomes his queen. The marriage was destined to influence materially the history of Israel (see Adonijah). But the most serious event in the history of the reign of David, so far as the internal affairs of the kingdom were concerned, was the rebellion of his son Absalom. Of an ambitious nature, Absalom sought the succession, even at the expense of dethroning his father. How he set about preparing the ground for the final coup is graphically described in 2 Samuel 16. After four [forty in the EV should be read ‘four’] years of suchlike crafty preparation, the rebellion broke out; a feast at Hebron, the old capital, given by Absalom to the conspirators, was the signal for the outbreak. At first Absalom was successful; he attacked Jerusalem, from which David had to flee; here, following the advice of Ahithophel, he took possession of the royal harem, a sign (in the eyes of the people of those days) of the right of heritage. The most obvious thing to do now would have been for Absalom to pursue David before he had time to gather an army; but, against the advice of Ahithophel, he follows that of Hushai — a secret friend of David — who succeeds in inducing Absalom to waste time by lingering in Jerusalem. Ahithophel, enraged at the failure of his plans, and probably foreseeing what the final result must be, leaves Absalom and goes to his home in Giloh and hangs himself (2 Samuel 17). In the meantime David, hearing what is going on in Jerusalem, withdraws across the Jordan, and halts at Mabanaim; here he gathers his forces together under the leadership of Joab. The decisive battle follows not long after, in the ‘forest of Ephraim’; Absalom is completely defeated, and loses his life by being caught in a tree by the head whilst fleeing. Whilst thus hanging he is pierced by Joab, in spite of David’s urgent command that he should not be harmed. The touching account of David’s sorrow, on hearing of Absalom’s death, is given in 2 Samuel 18:23–33. A second rebellion, of a much less serious character, was that of Sheba, who sought to draw the northern tribes from their allegiance; it was, however, easily quelled by Joab (ch. 20).

The rebellion (if such it can be called) of Adonijah occurred at the very end of David’s reign. This episode is dealt with elsewhere (see Adonijah), and need not, therefore, be described here.

(6) External affairs. — Unlike most of his dealings with foreigners, David’s first contact, as king, vrith those outside of his kingdom, viz. with the Syrians, was of a peaceful character. Hiram, king of Tyre, sent (according to 2 Samuel 5:11. 1 Chronicles 14:1) artificers of different kinds to assist David in building. But this was the exception. One of the characteristics of David’s reign was its large number of foreign wars. It is, however, necessary to bear in mind that in the case of a newlyestablished dynasty this is only to be expected. The following is, very briefly, a list of David’s foreign wars; they are put in the order found in 2 Sam., but this order is not strictly chronological; moreover, it seems probable that in one or two cases duplicate, but varying, accounts appear: Philistines (5:17–25). Moabites (8:2). Zobah (8:3, 4). Syrians (S’-‘s), Edomites (8:14). Ammonites, Syrians (IQi 11:1 12»-si), and Philistines (21:15–22). David was victorious over all these peoples, the result being a great extension of his kingdom, which reached right up to the Euphrates (cf. Exodus 23:31–33, Deuteronomy 11:23–25). Wars of this kind presuppose the existence of a, comparatively speaking, large army; that David had a constant supply of (troops may be gathered from the details given in 1 Chronicles 27.

While it is impossible to deny that the role of musician in which we are accustomed to picture David is largely the product of later ages, there can be no doubt that this rdle assigned to him is based on fact (cf. e.g. 1 S 1:17–27. 2 Samuel 22:2–51 = Psalms 18, Amos 6:5), he must evidently be regarded as one of the main sources of inspiration which guided the nation’s musicians of succeeding generations (see art. Psalms).

The character of David offers an intensely interesting complex of good and bad, in which the former largely predominates. As a ruler, warrior, and organizer, he stands pre-eminent among the heroes of Israel. His importance in the domain of the national religion lies mainly in his founding of the sanctuary of Zion, with all that that denotes. While his virtues of openheartedness, generosity, and valour, besides those already referred to, stand out as clear as the day, his faults are to a large extent due to the age in which he lived, and must be discounted accordingly.

W. O. E. Oesteeley.

David, City of

See Jehusalem.

Dat

See Time.

Day of Atonement

See Atonement [Dat of).

Day Ofthe Lord

The day in which Jehovah was expected to punish sinful Hebrews and the enemies of Israel, and to establish at least the righteous remnant of His people in political supremacy. The Hebrews believed implicitly that their God Jehovah was certain to defeat all rivals. Befo re Amos this view had not reached a definite eschatslogy, and probably involved only a general expectation of the triumph of Israel and Israel’s God. With Amos, however, the conception of punishment became less ethnic and more moral. Thesins of Israel itself deservfd punishment, and Amos declared that the luxury of t* e nation, with all its economic oppression, had gJown hateful to Jehovah, and unless abandoned would bring fearful punishment (Amos 2:6–8 3:9–15 5 6). The righteousness of Jehovah demanded that the sins of His people as well as those of the heathen should be punished. After Amos the thought of an awful day of Divine punishment was extended from Israel to a world of sinners. According to Zephaniah (l^-‘s 2:4–15). punishment was now to come upon all wicked persons, both Jews and Gentiles, because of wrong. So, too, the unknown prophet who wrote under the name of Malachi. Ezekiel (30 34 39), however, reverted to the same national thought of a’ day of battle,’ in which Jehovah would conquer all Israel’s foes; and to some extent this same national idea is represented by Joel (2). With the later prophets there is to be seen an element of reconstruction as well ^s punishment in Jehovah’s action. Sinners, whether Jews or Gentiles, are to be punished, but a pious remnant is to be saved, the beginnings of a new Israel.

It is clear that this conception of a great Day of Jehovah underlies much of the Messianic expectation of apocryphal literature. The establishment of a remnant of a pious Israel was the germ of the hope of the Messianic kingdom; and the Day of Jehovah itself became the Day of Judgment, which figures so largely in both Jewish and Christian Messianism. It fact, it is not too much to say that the eschatology of Judaism is really a development of the implications of the prophetic teaching as to the Day of Jehovah.

Shailer Mathews.

Day's Journey

A ‘day’s journey’ (Numbers 11:31. 1 Kings 19:4. Jonah 3:4. Luke 2:44; cf. three days’ journey, Genesis 30:36. Exodus 3:18 etc.; seven days, Genesis 31:23) was not, like the ‘sabbath day’s journey’ (see Weights and Measures), a definite measure of length, but, like our ‘stone’s throw,’ ‘bow-shot,’ etc., a popular and somewhat indefinite indication of distance. This would naturally vary with the urgency and impedimenta of the traveller or the caravan. Laban in hot pursuit of Jacob, and the Hebrew host in the wilderness, may be taken to represent the extremes in this matter of a ‘day’s journey’ (reft, above), although it is scarcely possible to take literally the ‘seven days’ journey’ of the former (Genesis 31:23) from Haran to Gilead, drca 350 miles in 7 days. From 20 to 30 miles is probably a fair estimate of an average day’s journey with baggage animals. A. R. S. Kennedy.

Daysman

A daysman is an arbiter. The compound arose from the use of the word ‘day’ in a technical sense, to signify a day for dispensing justice. The same use is found in Gr.; thus 1 Corinthians 4:3 ‘man’s judgment’ is literally ‘man’s day.’ The word occurs in Job 9:33 ‘Neither is there any daysman betwixt us’ (AV and RV margin ‘umpire’). Tindale translates Exodus 21:22. ‘he shall paye as the dayesmen appoynte him’ (AV ‘as the judges determine’).

Dayspring

An old English expression denoting the dawn (‘the day sprynge or dawnynge of the daye gyveth a certeyne lyght before the rysinge of the sonne,’ Eden, Decades, 1555, p. 264). It occurs in Job38’2 ‘Hast thou . . . caused the dayspring to know his place?’; Wisdom 16:28 ‘at the dayspring pray unto thee’ (RV ‘at the dawning of the day’). Virtually the same expression occurs in Judges 19:25 and 1 Samuel 9; cf. also Genesis 32:24 and Psalms 65:8 (east and west called ‘the outgoings of the morning and evening’). In Luke 1:78 the expression ‘dayspring from on high’ probably goes back to a ■ Heb. original which was a. well-understood personal designation of the Messiah (combining the ideas of ‘light’ and ‘sprout’); it would then be a poetical equivalent for ‘Messiah from heaven.’

G. H. Box.

Day Star

See Lucifer.

Deacon

The Gr. word diakonos, as well as the corresponding verb and abstract noun, is of very frequent occurrence in the text of the NT, but in EV is always translated ‘servant’ or ‘minister’ except in Philippians 1:1. 1 Timothy 3:8–13. where it is rendered ‘deacon,’ these being the only two passages where it is evidently used in a technical sense.

In the Gospels the word has the general meaning of ■ servant’ (cf. Matthew 20:26)) 23:11. John 2:5, 9). St. Paul employs it constantly of one who is engaged in Christian service, the service of God or Christ or the Church (e.g. 2 Corinthians 6:4 11:23. Col l’s-26), but without any trace as yet of an ofBcial signification. Once in Romans we find him distinguishing diakonia (‘ministry’) from prophecy and teaching and exhortation (12:6–8) but it seems evident that he is speaking here of differences in function, not in office, so that the passage does not do more than foreshadow the coming of the diaconate as a regular order.

In Acts the word diakonos is never once employed, but 6:1–6. where we read of the appointment of the Seven, sheds a ray of light on its history, and probably serves to explain how from the general sense of one who renders Christian service it came to be applied to a special officer of the Church. The Seven are nowhere called deacons, nor is there any real justification in the NT for the traditional description of them by that title. The qualifications demanded of them (v.. cf. v. 5) are higher than those laid down in 1 Timothy for the office of the deacon; and Stephen and Philip, the only two of their number of whom we know anything, exercise functions far above those of the later diaconate (6:8 ff. S^-". 2m.). But the fact that the special duty to which they were appointed is called a diakonia or ministration (v. 1) and that this ministration was a definite part of the work of the Church in Jerusalem, so that ‘the diakonia’ came to be used as a specific term in this reference (cf. Ac. 11:29 12. Romans 15:25, 31. 2 Corinthians 8:4 9), makes it natural to find in their appointment the germ of the institution of the diaconate as it meets us at Philippi and Ephesus, in two Epp. that belong to the closing years of St. Paul’s life.

It is in these Greek cities, then, that we first find the deacon as a regular official, called to office after probation(1 Ti 3:10), and standing alongside the bishop in the ministry of the Church (Philippians 1:1. 1 Timothy 3:1–13). As to his functions nothing is said precisely. We can only infer that the diakonia of the deacons in Philippi and Ephesus, like the diakonia of the Seven in Jerusalem, was in the first place a ministry to the poor. The forms of this ministry would of course be different in the two cases, as the social conditions were (see art. Communion), but in the Gentile as in the Jewish world it would naturally be a service of a responsible, delicate, and often private kind — an inference that is borne out by what is said in 1 Tim. as to the deacon’s qualifications.

Comparing these qualifications with those of the bishop, we observe that the difference is just what would be suggested by the names bishop or ‘overseer’ and deacon or ‘servant’ respectively. Bishops were to rule and take charge of the Church (1 Timothy 3:5) deacons were to ‘serve well’ (v. 13). Bishops must be ‘apt to teach’ (v. 2) ; deacons were only called to ‘hold the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience’ (v. 9). That the work of the deacon and his fellow-servant the deaconess (wh. see) was of a house-to-house kind is suggested by the warnings given against talebearing (v. 8) and backbiting (v. 11). That it had to do with the distribution of Church moneys, and so brought temptations to pilfering, is further suggested by the demand that the deacon should not be greedy of filthy lucre (v. 8) and that his female counterpart should be ‘faithful (i.e. trustworthy) in all things’ (v. 11). J. C. Lambert.

Deaconess

The word does not occur in EV except as a RVm reading in Romans 16:1. In this verse Phoebe is described as ‘a diakonos of the church that is at Cenchreffi.’ AV and RV render ‘servant,’ RVm ‘deaconess.’ Against the latter must be noted: (1) There is no evidence of the deacon (wh. see) in the NT till we come to the Ep. to the Philippians, and it is most unlikely that when Romans was written there would be an official deaconess. (2) Cenchrese was one of the ports of Corinth; and in St. Paul’s letters to the Corinthian Church there is a notable absence of any signs of a definite ecclesiastical organization in that city. The conclusion is that the diakonia of Phoebe in Cenchreae, like the diakonia (‘ministry’) of Stephanas and his household in Corinth (1 Corinthians 16:15). was a gracious but unofficial ministry to the saints (cf. Ro 16).

In 1 Timothy 3:11, however, although the word ‘deaconess’ is not used, it is almost certain that female deacons are referred to. AV misleads us by making it appear that the wives of deacons are spoken of; RV corrects this by rendering ‘Women in like manner must be grave, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things.’ And when the whole passage (vv. 8–13) ig read, it seems evident that the women referred to in v. 11 are diakonoi ‘in like manner’ as the men described both before and after. We know from Pliny, writing early in the 2nd cent., that by that time there were deaconesses in the Christian Churches of Bithynia (Ep. x. 96). And in the ancient world the need must have been early felt for a class of women who could perform some at least of the duties of the diaconate for their own sex in particular.

J. C. Lambert.

Dead

See Death.

Dead Sea

An inland lake 47 miles long and from 2i to 9 miles in breadth, which receives the waters of the Jordan. Its level is 1293 ft. below that of the Mediterranean, being the lowest body of water on the surface of the earth. It has no outlet, and the water received by it is all carried oft by evaporation. In consequence, the waters of the Lake are impregnated with mineral substances to a remarkable degree; they yield 25 per cent, of salt, whereas the ocean yields but 4 to 6 per cent.

The modern name is of late origin (first used apparently by Pausanias) and refers to the total absence of life in its waters. It has no Scripture warrant; Hebrew writers speak of it as the ‘Salt Sea’ (Genesis 14, Numbers 34, Joshua 15:5 etc.), the ‘sea of the Arabah’ (Deuteronomy 3:17 4:49). the ‘east or eastern sea’ (Ezekiel 47:18, Joel 2:20). In Arabic it is known as Bahr Lut, ‘the sea of Lot,’ a name which, however, is more probably due to the direct influence of the history as reiated in the Koran than to a survival of local tradition. Somewhere near the sea were Sodom and Gomorrah, but whether north or south of it is not settled; the one certain fact about their sites is that the popular belief that they are covered by the waters of the Lake is quite inadmissible.

The Dead Sea owes its origin to a fault or fracture produced in the surface of the region by the earthmovements whereby the land was here raised above the sea-level. This fault took place towards the end of the Eocene period ; it extends along the whole Jordan valley from the Gulf of Akabah to Hermon; and it may be taken as fairly certain that the general appearance of the Lake has not radically altered during the whole time that the human race has existed in the world.

Round the border of the Lake are numerous small springs, some bursting actually under its waters, others forming lagoons of comparatively brackish water (as at ‘Ain Feshkhak on the western side). In these lagoons various specimens of small fish are to be found ; but in the main body of the water itself life of any kind is impossible.

Recent observations tend to show that the surface of the Lake is slowly rising. An island that was a conspicuous feature at the N. end disappeared under the surface in 1892, and has never been seen since.

R. A. S. Macalisteb.

Deafness

See Medicine.

Deal

A deal is a part or share. It is still in use in the phrase ‘a great deal’ or ‘a good deal.’ In AV occurs ‘tenth deal’ (RV ‘tenth part’), the Heb. ‘issdrdn being a measure used in meal-offerings. See Weights

AND MEAS0BES, n.