Deluge – Deutebonostt

Deluge

1. The Biblical story, Genesis 6:5 [6:1–4 is probably a separate tradition, unconnected with the Deluge (see Driver, Genesis, p. 82)]. - The two narratives of J and P have been combined; the verses are assigned by Driver as follows: J 6’-‘7’-‘- ‘-‘"• "■ 16b. 17b. 22. 23 g2b-3a. 6-12. 13b. 20-22. p 69-22 76. 11. ]3-16a. 17.. 18-21. 24 81. 2». 3b-B. 13.. 14-19 91.17. J aloue relates the sending out of the birds, and the sacrifice with which J" is so pleased that He determines never again to curse the ground. P alone gives the directions with regard to the size and construction of the ark, the blessing of Noah, the commands against murder and the eating of blood, and the covenant with the sign of the rainbow. In the portions in which the two narratives overlap, they are at variance in the following points, (a) In P one pair of every kind of animal (6i8-20)_ jn J one pair of the unclean and seven of the clean (7^- ‘), are to be taken into the ark. (In 7’ a redactor has added the words ‘two and two’ to make J’s representation conform to that of P.) The reason for the difference is that, according to P, animals were not eaten at all till after the Deluge (9’), so that there was no distinction required between clean and unclean. (6) In P the cause of the Deluge is not only raint but also the bursting forth of the subterranean abyss (6"); J mentions rain only (v.12). (c) In P the water begins to abate after 150 days (8^), the mountain tops are visible after 8 months and 13 days (7" 8’), and the earth is dry after a year and 10 days (8"); in J the Flood lasts only 40 days (7’^ 8»), and the water had begun to abate before that.

2. The Historicity of the story. — The modern study of geology and comparative mythology has made it impossible to see in the story of the Deluge the literal record of an historical event. (The fact that marine foBsUs are found on the tops of hills cannot be used as an argument, for (i.) the same argument could be used — and is actually used by native tribes — to prove other flood-stories in various parts of the globe; and (ii.) though it proves that some spots which are now at the tops of hills were at one time submerged, that is not equivalent to asserting that a flood ever occurred which covered the whole planet — apart from the extreme improbability that the submergence of mountains was within the period of man’s existence.) The difficulties in the story as it stands are immense. (a) All the water in the world, together with all the vapour if reduced to water, would not cover the whole earth to the height of Mt. Ararat. And if it had, it is impossible to imagine how it could have dried up in a year and 10 days (not to speak of 40 days), or whither it could have flowed away. (6) If only a single family survived, it is impossible to account for the wide variety of races and languages, (c) The means of safety is not a ship, but simply a huge chest, which would instantly capsize in a storm. It is popularly assumed that it had a hull, shaped like that of a ship; but of this nothing is said in the Heb. narrative, (d) The collection by Noah of a pair of every kind of animal, bird, and creeping thing, which would include species peculiar to different countries from the arctic regions to the tropics, is inconceivable. And no less so the housing of them all in a single chest, the feeding and care of them by eight persons, the arrangements to prevent their devouring one another, and the provision- of the widely diverse conditions of life necessary for creatures from different countries and climates. From every point of view it is clear that the story is legendary, and similar in character to the legends which are found in the folk-lore of all peoples.

3. The Cause of the Deluge. — This is stated to be rain (T’""- ‘2), and the bursting forth of the subterranean abyss. It must be studied in connexion with other flood-stories. Such stories are found principally in America, but also in India, Cashmir, Tibet, China, Kamschatka, AustraUa, some of the Polynesian Islands, Lithuania, and Greece. In the great majority of cases the flood is caused by some startling natural phenomenon, which often has a special connexion with the locality to which it belongs; e.g. the melting of the ice or snow, in the extreme N. of America; earthquakes, on the American coastlauds where they frequently occur; the submergence or emergence of islands, in districts liable to volcanic eruptions; among inland peoples the cause is frequently the bursting of the banks of rivers which have been swollen by rains. Sometimes the stories have grown up to account for various facts of observation ; e.g. the dispersion of peoples, and differences of language; the red colour, or the pale colour, of certain tribes; the discovery of marine fossils inland, and so on. In some cases these stories have been coloured by the Bible story, owing to the teaching of Christian missionaries in modem times, and often mixed up with other Bible stories, and reproduced with grotesque details by local adaptation. But there are very many which are quite unconnected with the story of Noah. (For a much fuller discussion of the various flood-stories see the valuable art.’ Flood ‘in Hastings’ DB ii.) It is reasonable, therefore, to treat the Hebrew story as one of these old-world legends, and to look for the cause of it in the natural features of the land which gave it birth. And we are fortunate in the possession of an earlier form of the legend, which belongs to Babylonia, and makes it probable that its origin is to be ascribed to the inundation of the large Babylonian plain by the bursting forth of one of the rivers by which it is intersected, and perhaps also, as some think, to the incursion of a tidal wave due to an earthquake somewhere in the South. This, among a people whose world was bounded by very narrow limits, would easily be magnifled in oral tradition into a universal Deluge.

4. The Babylonian story. — (o) One form of the story has long been known from the fragments of Berosus, an Egyptian priest of the 3rd cent. B.C. It differs in certain details from the other form known to us; e.g. when the birds return the second time, clay is seen to be attaching to their legs (a point which flnds parallels in some Ni. American flood-legends) ; and not only the nero of the story, Xisuthros, and his wife, but also his daughter and the pilot of the ship are carried away by the gods.

(6) The other and more important form is contained in Akkadian cuneiform tablets m the British Museum, first deciphered in 1872. It is part of an epic in 12 parts, each connected with a sign of the Zodiac; the Flood story is the 11th, and is connected with Aquarius, the ‘waterbearer.’ Gilgamesh of Uruk (Erech, On 10’°), the hero of the epic, contrived to visit his ancestor Ut-napishtim, who had received the gift of immortality. The latter is in one passage called Adra-hasis, which being inverted as Hasis-adra appears in Greek as Xisuthros. He relates to Gilgamesh how, for his piety, he had been preserved from a great flood. When Bel and three other gods determinedto destroy Shurippak, a city ‘lying on the Euphrates ,’ Ea warned him to build a ship. He built it 120 cubits in height and breadth, with six decks, divided into 7 storeys, each with 9 compartments; it had a mast, and was smeared with bitumen. He took on board all his possessions, ‘the seed of life of every kind that I possessed,’ cattle and beasts of the field, his family, servants, and craftsmen . He entered the ship and shut the door. Then Ramman the storm-god thundered, and thespirits of heaven brought lightnings; the

gods were terrified; they fled to heaven, and cowered in a eap like a dog in his kennel. On the 7th day the rain ceased, and all mankind were turned to clay. The ship grounded on Mt. Nisir, E. of the Tigris, where it remained 6 days. Then Ut-napishtim sent forth a dove, a swallow, and a raven, and the last did not return. He then sent the animals to the four winds, and offered sacrifice on an altar at the top of the mountain. "The gods smelled the savour and gathered like flies. The great goddess Ishtar lighted up the rainbow. She reproached Bel for destroying all mankind instead of one city only. Bel, on the other nand, was angry at the escape of Ut-napishtim, and refused to come to the sacrifice. But ne was pacified by Ea, and at length entered the ship, and made a covenant with Ut-napishtim, and translated him and his wife to ‘the mouth of the rivers,’ and made them immortal.

The similarities to the Heb. story, and the differences from it, are alike obvious. It dates from at least B.C. 3000, and it would pass through a long course of oral repetition before it reached the Hebrew form. And herein is seen the religious value of the latter. The genius of the Hebrew race under Divine inspiration gradually stripped it of all its crude polytheism, and made it the vehicle of spiritual truth. It teaches the unity and omnipotence of J"; His hatred of sin and His punishment of sinners; but at the same time His merciful kindness to them that obey Him, which is shown in rescuing them from destruction, and in entering into a covenant with them.

6. It is strange that, apart from Genesis 9:28 10 ll’», there are only two allusions in the OT to the Flood, Isaiah 54:9 and Psalms 29:10 (the latter uncertain; see commentaries). In the Apocr.: 2 Esdras 3:9 f.: Wisdom 10:4. Sirach 44:17 f. (40:10 in LXX, but not in Heb.). In the NT: Matthew 24:38 f.: Luke 17:27. Hebrews 11:7. 1 Peter 3:20, 2lP 2:5. A. H. M’ NurLE.

Demas

( = Demetrius?). A companion of St. Paul in his first Roman imprisonment (Colossians 4:14. Philem ^4). There is some indication (cf. Philippians 2:20 f.) that even then Demas was not altogether trusted ; and later he forsook the Apostle, ‘having loved this present world’ (2 Timothy 4:10). He was apparently a native of Thessalonica.

A. J. Maclean.

Demetrius

1. Soier, the son of Seleucus Philopator. In his boyhood he was sent (b.c. 176) to Rome as a hostage, but made his escape after the death of his uncle, Antiochus Epiphanes. Landing at Tripolis, he was joined by large bodies of the people, and even by the bodyguard of his cousin, Antiochus Eupator. Eupator was soon defeated and put to death, and in B.C. 162, Demetrius was proclaimed king (1 Maccabees 7:1–4. 2 Maccabees 14:1, 2; Jos. Ant. xii. x. 1). After seven years, Alexander Balas (wh. see) was set up as a claimant to the crown of Syria (b.c. 153); and he and Demetrius competed for the support of Jonathan (1 Maccabees 10:1–21; Jos. Ant. XIII. ii. 1-3). Balas prevailed in spite of the attempts of his rival to outbid him (1 Maccabees 10:25–45). In B.C. 150 a decisive engagement took place, in which Demetrius was defeated and slain (1 Maccabees 10:48–50; Jos. Ant. XIII. ii. 4).

2. Nikator, sent by his father, D. Soter, for safety to Cnidus after the success of Balas seemed probable. After several years of exile he landed (B.C. 147) with an army of Cretan mercenaries on the Cilician coast, and finally inflicted a fatal defeat upon Balas (b.c. 145) on the banks of the (Enoparas, from which event Demetrius derived his surname (1 Maccabees 11:14–19; Jos. Ant. xiii. iv. 8). He bought off the opposition of Jonathan by the addition of three Samaritan provinces to Judsea, and the exemption from tribute of the country thus enlarged (1 Maccabees 11:20–37; Jos. Ant. xiii. iv. 9). After varying fortunes in the war with Tryphon (wh. see), Demetrius invaded the dominions of the king of Parthia, by whom, in b.c. 138, he was taken prisoner (1 Maccabees 14:1–3). Upon regaiuiq|#his liberty at the end of ten years, he undertook a w!r against Ptolemy Physkon of Egypt. Having been defeated by Zabinas at Damascus, he fled to Ptolemads, and thence to Tyre, where in b.c. 125 he was murdered (Jos. Ant. xiii. ix. 3), possibly at the instigation of his wife Cleopatra (App. Syr. 68; Liv. Epit. Ix.).

3. Eukairos, grandson of D. Nikator. On the death of his father he established himself in Ccele-Syria, with Damascus as his capital (Jos. Ant. xiii. xiii. 4). When civil war broke out between Alexander Jannaeus and his Pharisee subjects, the latter invited the assistance of Demetrius (Jos. Ant. xiii. xiii. 5, BJ i. iv. 4), who defeated JanuEBus in a pitched battle nearShechem (Jos. Ant. xiii. xiv. 1, BJ i. iv. 5). After a chequered career, Demetrius fell into the hands of the Farthians, by whom he was detained in captivity until his death (Jos. Ant. xiii. xiv. 3).

4. 5. Two persons of the name are mentioned in NT — the ringleader in the riot at Ephesus (Acts 19:24). and a disciple commended by St. John (3 Jn ‘2). Probably the same name occurs in a contracted form as Demos.

DBaHON.— The word does not occur in AV. In RV it is substituted for ‘devil’ in the margin of many passages, and the American Committee was in favour of its adoption in the text. Twice it stands in the text (Deuteronomy 32:17. Psalms 106:37). representing a root found in both Assyr. and Arab., and denoting a species of genii or demi-gods, who were conceived as invested with power for good or evil, and to whom even human sacriflces were offered. So in Baruch 4:7; and in the same sense probably ‘devils’ is used in 1 Corinthians 10:20 and Revelation 9:20. For the conception of demon as an influence or spirit, exclusively evil, see Devil; and for the phenomena, see Possession and Exorcism. R. W. Moss.

Demophon

Demophon’ (2 Maccabees 12:2). A Syrian commandant in Palestine under Antiochus Eupator.

Den

The five Heb. words represented by ‘den’ signify respectively ‘hollow place’ (Isaiah 32:14), ‘thicket’ (Psalms 10:9). ‘place of ambush’ (Job 37:8), ‘dwelling’ (Job 38:40), ‘light hole’ or ‘eyeball’ (Isaiah 11:8) but the last passage, may be corrupt. J. ‘Taylok.

Denarius

See Monet, §§ 6. 7.

Deputy

1 . AV of Esther 8:9 9:3) (RV governor ‘) as tr. of pecMh. See Governor. 2. AV of Acts 13:7, 8, 12 IS’^ igas (RV ‘proconsul’) as tr. of Gr. anthupatos. See Proconsul.3. RV of Jeremiah 51:23, 28 (AV ‘ruler’), Daniel 3:2, 3 6:7 (AV ‘governor’) as tr. of sOgan or its Aram, equivalent. •The term denotes in these passages a superior oflicial or prefect of the Babylonian Empire. It is applied elsewhere (Ezra 9:2. Nehemiah 2:16 4:14, 19 etc.) to petty officials in Judah (EV ‘rulers,’ RVm ‘deputies’). 4. AV and RV of 1 Kings 22:47 as tr. of nisiab (lit. ‘one set up or appointed’), used of the vassal-king of Edom.

Derbe

A city in the ethnic district Lycaonia, and in the region Lycaonia-Galatica of the Roman province Galatia, on the main road from Iconium (or Lystra) S.E. to Laranda. - The modern villages Losta and Gudelissin are built on the ruins of the city or its territory. Amyntas, king of Galatia, had conquered it, and in b.c. 25 it passed with the rest of his territory into the hands of the Romans. From a.d. 41 to 72 it was the frontier city of the province, and was honoured with the prefix Claudia. It was in this period that St. Paul visited it (Acts 14:6). and then retraced his steps to Lystra, etc. On his second journey, coming from Cilicia, he reached it first and then went on to Lystra, as he did also on the third journey. Gains of Derbe was one of the representatives of Galatia in the deputation which carried the collection for the poor Christians in Jerusalem (Acts 20:4). Derbe was on the whole one of the least important places visited by St. Paul, and appears little in history. A. SonTER.

Descent into Hades

The general meaning of the word ‘hell’ (Hades) in the OT is the unseen, hidden place. It is the shadowy dwelling-place of the spirits of the dead. At first there was no idea of a distinction between good and bad. But such an idea grew up, and in the NT our Lord sanctioned the belief. In the parable of Dives and Lazarus (Luke 16:19–31). while the soul of Dives was said to be in torment the soul of Lazarus was taken to the society of Abraham. The promise to the penitent robber (Luke 23:43) ‘To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise,’ points in the same direction.

The Apostles seem to have taught from the first that the soul of Christ Himself passed into Hades at His death. This appears in the first sermon of St. Peter (Acts 2). when he quotes Psalms 16:10, ‘Thou wilt not leave my soul in Hades,’ as a prophecy of the Resurrection. St. Paul also, adapting some words from Deuteronomy 30. wrote to the Romans (IC) that it is not necessary to search the depth, since Christ is risen from the dead. His reference to ‘the lower parts of the earth’ in Ephesians 4:9 has been interpreted to mean ‘came down to earth in the Incarnation’:’ Now this, he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?’ But the phrase had been used in Psalms 63:9 with reference to Hades, and has probably that meaning in this passage also. Through obedience even unto death, Christ became Lord of the under world also, and in His descent asserted His Lordship (Philippians 2:10).

Thus we find the way prepared for explanation of the difficult passage 1 Peter 3:18–20: ‘Because Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God; being put to death in the flesh, but quickened in the spirit ; in which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison, which aforetime were disobedient, when the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing’; cf. 4:6 ‘For unto this end was the gospel preached even to the dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.’

Until the time of St. Augustine this passage was interpreted to mean that Christ preached to the spirits of men and women who were drowned in the Flood. The Apostle bids his readers take courage from the fact that Christ’s death was followed by a quickening in the spirit. If persecution should bring them to death also, similar increase of spiritual energy would follow. There is a reference to the Ascension in v. 22. which marks the time that Christ preached and excludes the idea that Christ in Noah preached to the men of Noah’s time, which was first suggested by St. Augustine. This view, however, though supported in modern times by the great names of Hammond, Pearson, and Barrow, is generally regarded as impossible.

There is one other interpretation, which must be mentioned as a possible alternative. Some critics suggest that the preaching was to the fallen angels mentioned in 2 Peter 2:4, Jude either after Christ’s death or before the Incarnation. The word ‘spirits’ is used of angels in the NT (Acts 23:8), but is used also of spirits of the dead (Hebrews 12. cf. Luke 24:37–39). and 1 Peter 4:6 seems to prove that this is the sense here.

We may pass by fanciful theories such as that the passage refers to the preactilng of Enoch regarded as an. incarnation of the Messiah. The apocryphal Book of Enoch records preaching of punishment to fallen angels, but says nothing of a preaching of salvation to the souls of men. And the word ‘preached’ in 1 Peter 3:19 implies preached the gospel.

If it is asked why should only one set of sinners be mentioned, we may reply that they were typical sinners, whose fate, as Dr. Bigg shows (Com., ad loc), was much questioned at the time when St. Peter wrote. There is some evidence that a belief was current in the Jewish schools to the effect that a time of repentance would be allowed to the sinners who perished in the Flood before the final judgment. We may hope for fresh light on the point from further research, and for the present may rest content with the interpretation which enables us to quote these passages in 1 P. as proving that moral distinctions exist in Hades, and that moral change is possible for moral beings there as here, unless they sin against light.

A. E. BuBN.

Desert

See Wilderness.

Destroy

(utterly). See Ban.

Deuel

Father of Eliasaph, prince of Gad (Numbers 1:14 742. 47 i02i’)=Reuel, Numbers 2:1. (perhaps the original name).

Deutebonostt

1. Structure, Origin, Influence. — The book consists of three speeches (l«-4", 5-26. 28, 292-302i>) and two poems (chs. 32. 33), all of which are represented as having been uttered by Moses on the plains of Moab before the crossing of Jordan. The slight narrative (chs. 27. 31. 34) is concerned mainly with the last days of Moses. Chapters 1-3, however, contain an historical sketch cast into the form of a speech.

Chs. 5-26. 28’-" are a unity with a formal opening (414-19) and close (29’); and this section, apart from some later additions, is homogeneous. Thus chs. 5-11 elaborate those principles concerning Jahweh and His relation to His people which give a peculiar character to the Hebrew polity; chs. 12-26 develop these into a code of law; 28’ pronounces blessings on obedience, curses on disobedience. This section, it is now agreed, was the Law-book found in the Temple in the 18th year of Josiah (b.c. 622-621), which formed the basis of the reform described in 2 Kings 22 f. Thus Josiah abolished the high places in Judah and Jerusalem (22). and confined legitimate worship to the sanctuary at Jerusalem; and this centralization of the cult is the dominating idea of Dt 5-26. Again, Josiah purified the Jahweh-worsiiip from baser elements, destroying the Asherah (2 Kings 23:6, cf. Deuteronomy 16:21 f.) and the houses of sodomy (2 Kings 23:7, cf. Deuteronomy 23:17 f.). His opposition to idolatry was directed against the same forms as those denounced in Deut. (cf. the sun-worship, 2 Kings 23:5, 11, Deuteronomy 17:3; and the worship of Milcom, 23:10, 13, Deuteronomy 12:31). The Passover, celebrated in his day at Jerusalem, is stated to have been unique (2 Kings 23:21 ff.) and Deut. forbids the celebration of the Passover elsewhere than in Jerusalem (16:5 f.). The king abolished the superstitious means of learning the Divine will (2 Kings 23:24). which Deut. forbids (IS’"). The demands of the Law-book and the performance of the king are parallel.

It is, however, a more difficult question how far the reforms which Josiah instituted in obedience to Deut. were new, and how far they were a return to older practices from which the nation had degenerated during the early monarchy. Three other codes can be distinguished in the Pentateuch, and a comparison of these with Deut. helps to determine its place in the development of Israel’s religion. An examination of the social legislation in Deut. leads to the conclusion that it is later than the Book of the Covenant (Ex 20- 23:33). Though we are not justified in calling Deut. a deliberate expansion of this legislation, it certainly represents a more developed state of society, as is seen, e.g., in its numerous laws about contracts. And in one particular it controls the cult at a cardinal point which Exod. left vague: the ‘every place where Jahweh records his name’ (Exodus 20:24) has become ‘the place which Jahweh shall choose to put his name there’ (Deut. passim). When Deut. is compared with the Law of Holiness (Lv 17-26), the codes are seen to be framed for different purposes — Leviticus as a handbook for priests, Deut. as a layman’s manual. But their legislation is parallel. Compared with P, Deut. is earlier, for questions left uncertain in Deut. are decided in P. See further, art. Hexateuch.

The few references in Deut. to events in Israel’s history bear out the conclusion thus reached, for they are dependent on JE, but show no acauaintance with P’s history. It is difllcult, e.g., to explain the absence of Korah in Deuteronomy 11:6, if the author read Numbers 16 in its present form, where Korah from P has been woven into the early story. When chs. 1-3 (see below) are included in this scrutiny, they support the inference that Deut. was an independent book, before P was incorporated with JE.

There are further indications of the date at which this code was introduced. Thus Deut. insists throughout on one sanctuary, at which legitimate worship can be offered to Jahweh.

The extent to which this dominates the code is not to be measured merely by the number of times the command is repeated. Older customs are recast in consequence of this change. The Passover altera its character from a family to a national festival (16:5 f.). A central tribunal is set up to replace the decisions at the local shrines (17:8 f.). Asylums for the manslayer are needed (19:1 ff., since the village altars where he once found safety (Exodus 21:14) are abolished, etc.

Now this was an innovatipn in Israel. Elijah, far from condemning the high places, is indignant at the sacrilege which has thrown down the altars of Jahweh (1 Kings 19:10). When he leaves the polluted land to seek Jahweh, he makes his way not to Jerusalem, but to Horeb (contrast Isaiah 2:2 f.). Hosea and Amos find much to condemn in the worship which was practised at Bethel and Dan, but never suggest that any worship offered at these shrines was ipso facto illegitimate. Yet these were the rehgious teachers of the nation. Deut., again, forbids the erection of pillars beside Jahweh’s altars (12:3 f.) it is difficult to understand how Isaiah (19:19) could have associated a pillar with Jahweh-worship, had this law been accepted in his day. The worship of the host of heaven — one of the few forms of idolatry specified in Deut. — is not mentioned till it receives severe blame from the prophets of the 7th cent. (Jeremiah 8:2 19 32:29, Zephaniah 1:3). But this Assyrian cult became a real danger to Israel’s religion, when Manasseh came under Eastern infiuences.

Hezekiah is the first king of whom we learn that he attempted to remove the high places (2 Kings 18:14). Evidently, however, this was an unpopular step, for the Rabshakeh was able to appeal to the conservative instincts of the nation against a king who practised such questionable innovations (18:22). What impelled Hezekiah was a religious, not a political, motive. The splendid monotheistic teaching of Isaiah carried with it the inference ‘One God, one sanctuary.’ Besides, the abuses which were associated with the local shrines compelled the religious leaders of the nation, who had been influenced by the teaching of Hosea and Amos, to go to the root and abolish such worship altogether. The one means of purifying their worship was to sever it from the high places with their Canaanite associations. Political events helped them. The fall of N. Israel (B.C. 722) carried with it the condemnation of the worship which was practised there, and swept away the worshippers who were attached to it. The deliverance of Jerusalem from Sennacherib threw a glory round the sanctuary of which Jahweh had so signally vindicated the inviolability. Probably a body of reformers framed their code in Hezekiah’s later years. They did not create a new legislation, they recast and put a new spirit into an older code. It would have been impossible to secure the acceptance of a brand-new code from a whole people.