Dress – Diage

Dress

The numerous synonyms for ‘dress’ to be found in our EV — ‘apparel,’ ‘attire,’ ‘clothes,’ ‘raiment,’ ‘garments,’ etc. — fairly reflect a similar wealth of terminology in the original Hebrew and Greek, more especially the former. As regards the particular articles of dress, the identification of these is in many cases rendered almost impossible for the English reader by the curious lack of consistency in the renderings of the translators, illustrations of which will be met with again and again in this article. For this and other reasons it will be necessary to have recourse to transliteration as the only certain means of distinguishing the various garments to be discussed.

1. Materials. — Scripture and anthropology are in agreement as to the great antiquity of the skins of animals, wild and domesticated, as dress material (Genesis 3:21 ‘coats of skin’; cf. for later times. Hebrews 11:37). The favourite materials in Palestine, however, were wool and flax (Proverbs 31:13). The finest quality of linen was probably an importation from Egypt (see Linen). Goats’ hair and camels’ hair supplied the materials for coarser fabrics. The first certain mention of silk is in Revelation 18:12. for the meaning of the word so rendered in Ezekiel 16:10, 13 is doubtful, and the silk of Proverbs 31:22 (AV) is really ‘fine linen’ as in RV.

2. Under Garments. — (a) The oldest and most widely distributed of all the articles of human apparel is the loin-cloth (Heb. ‘525r), originally a strip of skin or cloth wrapped round the loins and fastened with a knot. Among the Hebrews in historical times it had been displaced in ordinary life by the shirt or tunic (see below). The loin-cloth or waist-cloth, however, is found in a number of interesting survivals in OT, where it is unfortunately hidden from the English reader by the translation’ girdle,’ a term which should be reserved for an entirely different article of dress (see § 3). The universal sign of mourning, for example, was the ‘girding’ of the waist with an ‘ezBr of hair-cloth (EV’ sackcloth’). Certain of the prophets, again, as exponents of the simple life, wore the waist-cloth as their only under garment, such as Elijah, who ‘was girt about with a loin-cloth (EV’ girdle’) of leather’ (2 Kings 1:8). and John the Baptist (Matthew 3:4, Mark 1:6). Isaiah on one occasion wore an ‘izor of hair-cloth (Isaiah 20:2). and Jeremiah on another occasion one of linen (Jeremiah 13:1 ff.). ).

The noun and the cognate verb are frequently used in figurative senses, the point of which is lost unless it is remembered that the waist-cloth was always worn next the skin, as e.g. Jeremiah 13:11. Isaiah 11:5. the figure in the latter case signifying that righteousness and faithfulness are essential and inseparable elements in the character of the Messianic ‘Shoot.’

(6) The aprons of Acts 19:12 were the Roman semidnctium, a short waist-cloth worn specially by slaves and workmen(see illust. in Rich, Diet, of Rom. andGr. Antiq., s.v.).

(c) In early times the priests wore a waist-cloth of linen, which bore the special name of the ephod (1 Samuel 2:18). and which the incident recorded in 2 Samuel 6:14 ff.: — David, as priest, dancing before the ark — shows to have been of the nature of a short kilt. By the Priests’ Code, however, the priests were required to wear the under garment described under Breeches. See, further, HOSEN.

(d) In OT, as has been said, the everyday under garment of all classes — save for certain individuals or on special occasions — is the shirt or tunic (kuttoneth, a term which reappears In Greek as chitBn, and probably in Latin as tunica). The uniform rendering of EV is coat, only John 9:23 RVm ‘tunic’ A familiar Assyrian sculpture, representing the siege and capture of Lachish by Sennacherib, shows the Jewish captives, male and female alike, dressed in a moderately tight garment fitting close to the neck (cf. Job 30:18) and reaching almost to the ankles, which must represent the Icuttoneth of the period as worn in towns. That of the peasantry and of most workmen was probably both looser and shorter, resembling in these respects its modem representative, the kamees (Lat. camisia, our ‘chemise’) of the Syrian fellahin.

As regards Sleeves, which are not expressly mentioned in OT— but see RVm at Genesis 37:3 (Joseph) and 2 Samuel 13 (Tamar) — three modes are found. An early Egyptian representation of a group of Semitic traders (c. e.g. 2000) shows a coloured sleeveless tunic, which fastens on the left shoulder, leaving the right shoulder bare. The Lachish tunics, above mentioned, have short sleeves reaching half-way to the elbows. This probably represents the prevailing type of tunic among the Hebrews of the earlier period at least, since a third variety, fitted with long and wide sleeves and reaching to the ground, was evidently restricted to the upper and wealthier classes. This is the ‘tunic of (i.e. reaching to) palms and soles’ worn by Joseph and the royal princess Tamar (see above), more familiar as the ‘coat of many (or diverse) colours,’ a rendering which represents a now generally abandoned tradition. In Josephus’ day the long white linen tunic, which was the chief garment of the ordinary priesthood, had sleeves which for practical reasons were tied to the arms (Jos. Ant. iii. vli. 2). By this time, also, it had become usual even among the lower ranks of the people to wear an under tunic or real shirt (tft. xvii. v. 7; Mishna, passim, where this garment is named chBlUk). In this case the upper tunic, the kuUoneth proper, would be taken off at night (Song of Songs 5:3).

The ordinary tunic was made in at least three ways. (1) It might consist of two similar pieces of woollen or linen cloth cut from a larger web, which were sewed together along the sides and top. (2) The material for a single tunic might be woven on the loom, and afterwards put together without cutting, in the manner of the Egyptian tunics described and figured in Smith’s Diet, of Or. and Rom. Antiq.’ s.v. ‘Tunica’ (ii. 904). (3) As we know from the description of the chitBn worn by our Lord at the time of His Passion (John 19:23). and from other sources, a third variety was woven ‘without seam’ on a special loom (see Spinning and Weaving) and required no further adjustment.

The garment intended by the ‘coats’ of Daniel 3:21, 27 (AV) is uncertain. Most recent authorities favour mantles (so AVm; RV has ‘hosen,’ wh. see). For the ‘coat of mail’ see Ahmouk, 2 (c).

3. The Girdle. — Almost as indispensable as the tunic was the girdle, which varied in material and workmanship from a simple rope (Isaiah 3:24 RV) to the rich and elaborate waist-belt of the priests, and the ‘golden girdles’ of Revelation 1 15:6. Usually it consisted of a long strip of cloth, folded several times and wound round the waist above the tunic, with or without the ends hanging down in front. When work or a journey was in contemplation, the girdle was put on, and part of the tunic drawn up till it hung over in folds. Hence this operation of ‘girding the loins’ became a figure for energetic action. The girdle served also as. a sword-belt (2 Samuel 20:8) through it was stuck the writer’s inkhorn (EzkQ’- "), while its folds served as a purse (Matthew 10:9 RVm). ‘The special priests’ girdle, termed ‘abmt (Exodus 28:4 and oft.), was a richly embroidered sash wound several times round the waist, according to Josephus, and tied in front, the ends falling to the ankles.

4. Upper Garments. — While the kuttoneth or tunic was the garment in which the work of the day was done (see Matthew 24:18 RV, Mark 13:16 RV), men and women alike possessed a second garment, which served as a protection against inclement weather by day and as a covering by night (Exodus 22). The two are sharply distinguished in the familiar saying of Jesus: ‘If any man sue thee at the law and take away thy coat (chitBn), let him have thy cloke (himation) also’ (Matthew 5:40).

(o) The commonest name for this upper garment in OT is sitnlah or salmah. The «lmlah was almost certainly a large rectangular piece of cloth, in most cases of wool, in more special cases of linen. It was thus the exact counterpart of the himation of the Greeks, which we have seen to be its NT name, and the pallium of the Romans. Like them, it belonged not to the class of endumata or garments ‘put on,’ as the tunic, but to the periblemata or garments ‘wrapped round’ the body.

Since this view is at variance with that of acknowledged authorities on the subject (Nowack, Benzinger, Mackle in art. ‘Dresa’ in Hastings’ DB i. 625), who identify the simlah with the modem ‘aba, the coarse loose overcoat of the modem Syrian peasantry, the groimds on which it is based may be here briefly set forth. (1) If the parallel passages. Exodus 22 and Deuteronomy 24:13, 17 on the one hand, and Numbers 15:38 and Deuteronomy 22:12 on the other, are compared in the original, it will be foimd that three terms are used indiscriminately for the ordinary upper garment of the Hebrews, and, further, that this garment had four corners, to each of which a tassel had to be attached (see more fully Fkinges) — a detail which suggests a plain f our-comered plaid like the himation, not a made-up garment like the chiton of the* aba. (2) The incident of the sick woman in Matthew 9:20 ff. and parallel passages, who reached forward in the crowd to touch the tassel of Jesus’ himation from behind, Bixov/a that the Jewish upper garment waa still worn by being wrapped round the body, over the back from left to right, with one comer and its tassel falling over the left shoulder, (3) The shape of the simple oblong tallilh or prayer-shawl of the modem Jews, with its four tassels, which is the direct descendant of the 8im.lah and the more recent taUith ai the Mishna, is in favour of the former having the shape now advocated. (4) ‘The clear distinction in N’T already referred to, between the two principal garments of the Jews, confirms the conclusion’that the typical Jewish upper garment closely resembled, if it was not identical with, the garment known as the himation throughout the Greek-speaking world.

In our EV the simlah is concealed from the English reader under a variety of renderings. Thus, to give but a few illustrations, it is the ‘garment’ with which Noah’s nakedness was covered in Genesis 9:23, and the ‘clothes’ in which the Hebrews bound up their kneadingtroughs (Exodus 12:34) it is the ‘garment’ of Gideon in Judges 8:25. and the ‘raiment’ of Ruth (3:3) just as the himation of NT is not only the ‘cloke’ of Matthew 5:40. but the ‘clothes’ of Matthew 24:18 (but RV ‘cloke’); the ‘garment’ of Mark 13:16, and so on.

(6) Another variety of upper garment, known as the me’ U, is mentioned only in connexion with men of high social position or of the priestly order. It is the robe of Saul — the skirt (lit. ‘corner’) of which was cut o£E by David (1 Samuel 24:4 f.) of Jonathan (18:4), and of Ezra (Ezra 9:3, 5). the little ‘coat’ of the boy-priest Samuel (1 Samuel 2:19), and his ‘mantle’ at a later stage (15:27). RV has ‘robe’ for me’ ll throughout. Wherein did the me’ U differ from the simlah/ From its constant association with men of rank, we should expect it to be of a more elaborate and ornate description. The violet ‘robe of the ephod’ prescribed for the high priest (Exodus 28:31 ff. 39:22 ff.) had ‘a hole for the head in the midst thereof, as it were the hole of a coat of mail,’ and was trimmed with an elaborate ball-and-bell fringe. Now on the black obelisk of Shalmaneser, the bearers of Jehu’s tribute, nobles of Samaria doubtless, are represented wearing over their tunics a similar fringed and sleeveless garment, open at the sides, and resembling, if not identical with, the upper garment of Assyrian kings and dignitaries of state, which may with some confidence be identified with the me’ U. The latter, then, seems to have been a piece of cloth of superior material and workmanship, in the shape of a magnified chest-protector, worn over the tunic like a priest’s chasuble, and reaching almost to the ankles. It probably came to the Hebrews from Babylonia through the medium of the Canaanites, and survives to-day in the ‘little tallith’ or arba kanphoth of the Jews (see Fringes). By the time of Josephus, the high priest’s me’ U had become a sleeveless and seamless upper tunic (Jos, Ant. III. vii. 4).

(c) A third variety of upper garment, the ‘addereth, appears to have been the distinctive garment of the prophets (see Zer 13:4 RV’ hairy mantle’). Elijah’s mantle, in particular, is always so named. The latter, according to the Gr. version of Kings, was made of sheepskin, with the wool outside (cf. 2 Kings 1:8 RVm and Genesis 25:25 ‘hairy garment’). It may, however, have been of goats’ or camels’ hair, as in the case of John the Baptist (Matthew 3:4, Mark 1:6).

(,d) Among the products of the domestic loom was a fourth garment, the sadJn (Proverbs 31:24). From the Mishna we learn that it was a plain sheet of fine linen with tassels, which could be used as a light upper garment. as a curtain, and as a shroud. In this last respect it resembled the NT sindon, the ‘linen cloth’ of Matthew 27:59. Mark 15:46 RV. It is probably as an upper garment of fine white linen for gala use (ct. Ecclesiastes 9:8) that the sodln is introduced in Judges 14:12 f. (AV ‘sheets,’ RV ‘linen garments’) and Isaiah 3:23.

(c) Mention must also be made of the ‘scarlet robe’ (.chlamys) in which Jesus was arrayed by the Roman soldiers (Matthew 27:28, 31). It Is the paludammtum or military cloak worn over their armour by the superior officers of the Roman army. The ‘cloke’ finally, which St. Paul left at Troas (2 Timothy 4:13) was the Roman poemda, a circular travelling cape. For the brooch or buckle by which an upper garment was sometimes fastened, see Ornaments, § 5.

5. Headdress.— (a) The Hebrewsappear at first to have had no coveringfor the head, except on special occasions, such as war, when a leather helmet was worn {see Akmohh, 2 (6)). At most a rope or cord served as a fillet, as may be inferred from 1 Kings 20:31 f.: and as may be seen in the representations of Syrians on the monuments of Egypt. In cases of prolonged exposure to the sun, it is most probable that recourse would be had to a covering in the style of the modern kefflyeh, which protects not only the head but also the neck and shoulders. Jehu’s tribute-carriers, above mentioned, are depicted in a headgear resembling the familiar Phrygian cap. The best attested covering, however — at least for the upper ranks of both sexes — is the Isanlph (from a root signifying to ‘wind round’) or turban. It is the royal ‘diadem’ of Isaiah 62:3. the ladies’ ‘hood* of Is (RV’ turban’), and the ‘mitre’ of Zee 3:5 (RVm ‘turban or diadem’). A kindred word is used for the high priest’s turban, the ‘mitre’ of Exodus 28:4. etc., for which see Mitre. A turban is also implied in Ezekiel’s description of a lady’s headdress:’ I have bound thee with a tire of fine linen’ (Ezekiel 16:10 RVm). The egg-shaped turban of the ordinary priests has been discussed under Bonnet (RV ‘head-tires’). The ‘hats’ of Daniel 3:21 were probably a variety of the conical Babylonian headdress, although RV gives ‘mantles.’ Antiochus Epiphanes, it is recorded, compelled the young Jewish nobles to wear the petams, the low, broad-brimmed hat associated with Hermes (2 Mac 4:12. RV ‘the Greek cap’).

In NT times, as may be learned from the Mishna, many forms of headdress were in use. One was named the sUdar, from the Lat. sudarium (a cloth for wiping off perspiration, sudor), which is the napkin of John 11:44 20:7. although there it appears as a kerchief or headcovering for the dead (ct. below, 8).

(ft) As regards the headdress of the female sex, we have seen that both sexes of the wealthier classes wore the isanlph or turban. The female captives from Lachish wear over their tunics an upper garment, which covers the forehead and hair and falls down over the shoulders as far as the ankles. Whether this is the garment intended by any of the words rendered vail in AV, as that of Ruth, for example (3:15. RV ‘mantle’), or by the ‘kerchief s for the head’ of Ezekiel 13:18 RV, It is impossible to say. The veil, however, with which Rebekah and Tamar covered themselves (Genesis 24:65 38:14), was more probably a large mantle in which the whole body could be wrapped, like the sadtn of 4 (d) above. Indeed, it is impossible to draw a clear distinction in OT between the mantle and the veil. The only express mention of a face-veil is in the case of Moses (Exodus 34:33).

6. Shoes and sandals. — Within doors the Hebrews went barefoot. Out of doors it was customary to wear either sandals or shoes, mostly the former. The simplest form of sandal consisted of a plain sole of leather, bound to the feet by a leather thong, the ‘shoelatchet’ of Gn 14:23 and the ‘latohet’ of Mark 1:7 etc. The Assyrians preferred a sandal fitted with a heel-cap, by which they are distinguished from Jehu’s attendants on the obelisk of Shalmaneser, who wear shoes completely covering the feet. In Ezekiel’s day ladies wore shoes of ‘sealskin’(Ezk 16:10 RV; but see Badgers’ Skins). The laced boot of the soldier may be referred to in Isaiah 9:5 (see RVm). The sandals were removed not only in cases of mourning (2 Samuel 15:30) and of a visit to a friend, but also on entering a sacred precinct (Exodus 3:5. Joshua 5:15) the Jewish priests, accordingly, performed all their offices in the Temple barefoot.

7. It need hardly be said that the taste for ‘purple and fine linen’ was not peculiar to the days of Dives, as may be seen from the rernarkable dress-fist in Isaiah 3:18 ff.: Richly embroidered garments are mentioned as early as the time of the Judges (Judges 5:30 RV). King Josiah had an official who bore the title of ‘the keeper of the wardrobe’ (2 Kings 22:14). The ‘change of raiment,’ however, several times mentioned in OT, were not so many complete outfits, but special gala robes, for which one’s ordinary garments were ‘changed.’ In the.East, such robes have continued a favourite form of gift and expression of esteem from sovereigns and other persons of high rank to the present day.

For what may be termed accessories of dress, see Oknaments, Seal, Staff.

8. A special interest must always attach to the question of the outward appearance of the Man of Nazareth, so far as it is associated with the dress He wore. This must have consisted of at least six separate articles, not five, as Edersheim states (Life and Times of Jesus, i. 625). By the 1st cent, it had become usual to wear a linen shirt (ch&luk) beneath the tunic (see 2 (d) above). In our Lord’s case this seems required by the mention of the upper garments (himatia, i.e. mantle and tunic) which He laid aside before washing the disciples’ feet (John 13:4). The tunic proper, we know, was ‘woven without seam’ throughout, and therefore fitted closely at the neck, with the usual short sleeves as above described. White linen was the favourite material for both shirt and tunic. Above the tunic was the linen girdle wound several times round the waist. On His feet were leather sandals (Matthew 3:11). His upper garment, as has been shown, was of the customary oblong shape — probably of white woollen cloth, as is suggested by the details of the Transfiguration narrative in Mark 9:3 — with the four prescribed tassels at the corners (see above, 4 (o) ). To the form of His headdress we have no clue, but it may be regarded as certain — the traditional artistic convention notwithstanding — that no Jewish teacher of that period would appear in public with head uncovered. Probably a white linen ‘napkin’ (sudarium) was tied round the head as a simple turban, the ends falling down over the neck. A. R. S. Kennedy.

Dbikk

See Meals, § 6, Wine and Strong Drink.

Drink-offering

See Sacrifice AND Offering.

Dromedary

See Camel.

Dropsy

See Medicine.

Drunkenness

See Wine and Strong Drink.

Drusilla

The third wife of the procurator Felix (Ac 24"). She was the youngest daughter of Herod Agrippa I., and is said to have been persuaded by one Simon (7 Simon Magus) to desert her first husband, Azizus king of Emesa, for Felix. She cannot have been more than 16 years of age when she listened to St. Paul reasoning on ‘righteousness and temperance and the judgment to come’ (Acts 24:25).

Dualism

The belief in, or doctrine of, two ultimate confiicting principles, powers, or tendencies in the universe. Haeokel describes as dualism the distinction between God and the world, and between matter and mind, and opposes to it his monism, which identifies both (Riddle of the Universe, ch. 1, p. 8). In this sense of the word the Bible teaches dualism. It does distinguish God as Creator from the world as created (Genesis 1:1. Isaiah 40:26, John 1:3). and describes God as Spirit in contrast with matter (John 4:24). In man it distinguishes the body taken from the dust, and the need not be proved further, as this view is implied in all the teaching of the Bible about God, world, man. But, setting aside this new sense of the term, we must consider whether the Bible gives evidence of dualism in the older sense, as opposing to God any antagonist or hindrance in His creating, preserving, and ruling the world. It is held that dualism in three forms can be traced in the Bible — (1) the mythical, (2) the metaphysical,(3) the ethical. Each must be separately examined.

1 . Mythical dualism . — In the Babylonian cosmology, Marduk, the champion of the upper deities, wages war against Tiamat, who leads the lower deities; at last he slays her, divides her body, and makes part a covering for the heavens to hold back the upper waters. There is little doubt that the account of the Creation in Genesis 1 reproduces some of the features of this myth, but it is transformed by the monotheism of the author (see Bennett’s Genesis, pp. 67-72). Tiamat appears under the name Bahab in several passages (Job 9:13 [RV] 26:12, 13 [see Davidson’s Job. p. 54], Isaiah 51:9, cf. 27:1 ‘leviathan the swift serpent,’ ‘leviathan the crooked serpent,’ ‘the dragon that is in the sea’). See Cheyne’s notes on these passages in the Prophecies of Isaiah, i. 158, ii. 31. In illustration of Isaiah 51:9 he quotes the address to Ra in the Egyptian Book of the Dead: ‘Hail l thou who hast cut in pieces the Scorner and strangled the Apophis’ [i.e. the evil serpent, Psalms 89:10, cf. Psalms 74:13, 14 ‘the dragons,’ ‘leviathan’]. This name is used as a symbolic name of Egypt (Psalms 87:4. Isaiah 30:7). probably on account of its position on the Nile, and its hostility to the people of God. The sea is regarded as God’s foe (Daniel 7:3 ‘four great beasts came up from the sea"; Revelation 13:1’ a beast coming up out of the sea,’ 21:1 ‘the sea is no more,’ that is, the power hostile to God has ceased), a conception in which the myth survives. The influence of the myth is seen only in the poetical language, but not in the rehgious beliefs of the Holy Scriptures.

2. Metaphysical dualism. — Greek thought was dualistic. Anaxagoras assumed hyl^, ‘matter,’ as well as nous, ‘mind,’ as the ultimate principles. Plato does not harmonize the world of ideas and the world of sense. Aristotle begins with matter and form. Neo-Platonism seeks to fill up the gulf between God and the world by a series of emanations. In Gnosticism the plirBma and the logos mediate between the essential and the phenomenal existence. St. John (1:1, 14) meets this Greek thought of his enviromnent by asserting that Christ is the Word who is with God and is God, and who has become flesh. Against Gnostic heretics St. Paul in Colossians (1:19 2:9) asserts that the pleroma, the fulness of the Godhead, dwells bodily in Christ ; to this dualism is opposed the union of Creator and creation, reason and matter in Christ.

From this metaphysical there resulted a practical dualism in Greek thought, between sense and reason. While Aristotle thought that reason might use sense as an artist his material, Neo-Platonism taught that only by an ascetic discipline could reason be emancipated from the bondage of sense; and Stoicism treated sense as a usurper in man’s nature, to be crushed and cast out by reason. Holsten has tried to show that this dualism is involved in St. Paul’s doctrine of the flesh, and Pfleiderer also holds this position. It is held that St. Paul, starting from the common Hebraic notion of flesh isarx), ‘according to which it signifles material substance, which is void indeed of the spirit, but not contrary to it, which is certainly weak and perishable, and so far unclean, but not positively evil,’ advances to the conception of the flesh as ‘an agency opposed to the spirit,’ having ‘an active tendency towards death.’ ‘From the opposition of physically different substances results the dualism of antagonistic moral principles’ (Pfleiderer’s Paulinism, i. 52 ff.). This conreason, and cannot be regarded as proved. The question will be more fully discussed in art. Flesh.

3. Ethical dualism.— In Persian thought there are opposed to one another, as in conflict with one another, Ormuad and Ahriman, the personal principles of good and evil. While the OT recognizes the power of sin in the world, yet God’s ultimate causality and sole supremacy are affirmed. In post-exilic Judaism, however, there was a twofold tendency so to assert the transcendence of God that angels must be recognized as mediating between Him and the world, and to preserve His moral perfection by assigning the evil in the world to the agency of evil spirits under the leadership of Satan, the adversary. While these tendencies may be regarded as inherent in the development of Hebrew monotheism, both were doubtless stimulated by the influence of Persian thought with its elaborate angelology and demonology. In the Apocalyptic literature the present world is represented as under Satan’s dominion, and as wrested from him only by a supernatural manifestation of God’s power to establish His Kingdom. This dualism pervades the Apocalypse. In the NT generally the doctrine of the devil current in Judaism is taken over, but the Divine supremacy is never denied, and the Divine victory over all evil is always confidently anticipated. (See artt. Apocalyptic Literature, Devil, Eschatology.)

While in the Bible there are these traces of the threefold dualism, it is never developed ; and monotheism is throughout maintained, God’s sole eternity, ultimate causality, and final victory being asserted, while God is distinguished from the world, and in the world a distinction between matter and mind is recognized.

Alfred E. Garvie.

Duke

The title of ‘duke’ in the AV has a very general meaning. It is an inheritance from the Eng. of earlier versions, in which (after Vulg. dux) ‘duke’ meant any leader or chief. Latimer calls Gideon a duke, and Wychf uses this title of Christ, as in his Works (iii. 137), ‘Jesus Christ, duke of oure batel.’ The title of ‘duke’ is confined in AV to the chiefs of Edom, with the exception of Joshua 13:21 ‘dukes of Sihon,’ and 1 Maccabees 10:65 (applied to Jonathan Maccabaeus).

Dulcimer

This term, which denotes a stringed instrument (? the mediaeval ‘psaltery’; see Music, §4 (1) (b)), is given incorrectly by EV in Daniel 3:5, 15 as tr. of sumpSnya (Gr. loan-word), which prob. = ‘bagpipe’; see Music, § 4 (2) (d).

Dximah

1. ated in Genesis 25:14 (1 Chronicles 1:30) as among the twelve tribes of Ishmael. The region thus indicated is supposed to be the oasis formerly called by the Arabs DUmat d-Jendel and now known as el-JSt, about three-fourths of the way from Damascus to Medina. The same place may be referred to in the obscure oracle Isaiah 21:11. but the LXX has ‘Idumaea,’ and it is possible that Edom is meant. 2. The name of a town in the highlands of Judah (Joshua 15:52). The reading is not certain. The LXX and Vulg. indicate Rumah, and not all editions of the Hebrew agree. If the received text is correct, an identification may be plausibly made with ed- Daumeh 10 miles S.W. of Hebron. J. F. McCurdy.

Dumbness

See Medicine.

Dung

1. Used in the East as manure (Luke 13) and for fuel; especially that of cattle, where wood and charcoal are scarce or unattainable. Directions for personal cleanliness are given in Deuteronomy 23:10–14; and in the case of sacrifices the dung of the animals was burnt outside the camp (Exodus 29:14, Leviticus 4:11, 12 8:17. Numbers 19:5). 2. The word is used (a) to express contempt and abhorrence, as in the case of the carcase of Jezebel (2 Kings 9:37) ; and in that of the Jews (Jeremiah 9:22. Zephaniah 1:17). (6) To spread dung upon the face was a sign of humiliation (Mai 2:3). . (c) As representing worthlessness, Paul counted all things but dung that he might win Christ (Philippians 3:8).

Dura, Plain of

The precise locality is uncertain, but it must have been in the vicinity of Babylon. Perhaps the name is derived from the Bab. duru^‘viail,’ which is frequently used as a town name. Oppert (JExpid. en Mesop. i. 238) found a small river so named, falling into the Euphrates 6 or 7 miles S.E. of Babylon, the neighbouring mounds being also named Tolul Dura. A curious Talmudic legend makes this plain the scene of Ezekiel’s vision (37’-‘?), which it regards as an actual event (iSonft. 92 6). J. Tatlob.

DWARF Is the rendering in’AV and RV of dag, a word (Leviticus 21:20) denoting one of the physical disqualifications by which a priest was unfitted for service. The word means thin, lean, small. The conjecture that it here means a dwarf is plausible. But others regard it as meaning an unnaturally thin man — a consumptive, perhaps.

Dyeing

See Arts and Ckafts, 6; Coloubs, 6.

Dysentery

See Medionb.

E

Diage

In theological usage the term ‘image’ occurs in two connexions: (1) as defining the nature of man (‘God created man in his own image,’ Genesis 1:27) and (2) as describing the relation of Christ as Son to the Father (‘who is the image of the invisible God,’ Colossians 1:15). These senses, again, are not without connexion; for, as man is re-created in the image of God — ^lost, or at least defaced, through sin (Colossians 3:10; cf. Eph — so, as renewed, he bears the image of Christ (2 Corinthians 3:18). These Scriptural senses of the term ‘Image’ claim further elucidation.

1. As regards man, the fundamental text is that already quoted, Genesis 1:26, 27. Here, in the story of Creation, man is represented as called into being, not, like the other creatures, by a simple ilat, but as the result of a solemn and deliberate act of counsel of the Creator: ‘Let us make man in our image, afterour likeness. . . . And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.’ Distinctions, referred to below, have been sought, since Patristic times, between ‘image’ and ‘likeness,’ but it is now generally conceded that no difference of meaning is intended. The two words ‘image’ (.tsdem) and ‘likeness’ (demuth) combine, without distinction of sense, to emphasize the idea of resemblance to God. This is shown by the fact that in v. 27 the word ‘image’ alone is employed to express the total idea, and in 5:1 the word ‘likeness.’ Man was made like God, and so bears His image. The expression recurs in Genesis 9:6, and again repeatedly in the NT (1 Corinthians 11:7, Colossians 3:10; cf. James 3:9 ‘likeness’). The usage in Genesis is indeed peculiar to the so-called ‘Priestly’ writer; but the idea underlies the view of man in the Jahwistic sections as well, for only as made in God’s image is man capable of knowledge of God, fellowship with Him, covenant relation to Him, and character conformable to God’s own. To ‘be as God’ was the serpent’s allurement to Eve (Genesis 3:5). Psalms 8 echoes the story of man’s creation in Genesis 1.

In what did this Divine image, or likeness to God, consist? Not in bodily form, for God is Spirit; nor yet simply, as the Socinians would have it, in dominion over the creatures; but in those features of man’s rational and moral constitution in which the peculiar dignity of man, as distinguished from the animal worid below him, is recogmzed. Man, as a spiritual nature, is self-conscious, personal, rational, free, capable of rising to the apprehension of general truths and laws, of setting ends of conduct before him, of apprehending right and wrong, good and evil, of framing ideas of God, infinity, eternity, immortality, and of shaping his life in the light of such conceptions. In this he shows himself akin to God; is able to know, love, serve, and obey God. The germ of sonship lies in the idea of the image. To this must be added, in the light of such passages as Ephesians 4:24 and Colossians 3:10. the idea of actual moral conformity — of actual knowledge, righteousness, and holiness — as pertaining to the perfection of the image. Sin has not destroyed the essential elements of God’s image in man, but it has shattered the image in a moral respect ; and grace, as the above passages teach, renews it in Christ.

If this explanation is correct, the older attempts at a distinction between ‘image’ and ‘likeness,’ e.g. that ‘image’ referred to the body, ‘likeness’ to the intellectual nature; or ‘image’ to the intellectual, ‘likeness’ to the moral, faculties; or, as in Roman Catholic theology, ‘image’ to the natural attributes of intelligence and freedom, ‘likeness’ to a superadded endowment of supernatural righteousness — must, as already hinted, be pronounced untenable.

2 . The idea of Christ, the Son, as ‘the image (eikOn) of the invisible God’ (Colossians 1:15; of. 2 Corinthians 4:4) connects itself with the doctrine of the Trinity, and finds expression in various forms in the NT, notably in Hebrews 1:3 — ‘who being the effulgence of his glory and the very image of his substance.’ Jesus Himself could declare of Himself that he who had seen Him had seen the Father (John 14:9). But the passages quoted refer to a supra-temporal and essential relation between the Son and the Father. God, in His eternal being, reflects Himself, and beholds His own infinite perfection’and glory mirrored, in the Son (cf. John 1:1 17:5). It is this eternal Word, or perfect self-revelation of God, that has become incarnate in Jesus Christ (John 1:14). The consequence is obvious. Bearing Christ’s image, we bear God’s. Being renewed in God’s image, we are conformed to the image of His Son (Romans 8:29). James Oke.

nUACrES. — 1. The making of an image imphes a definite conception and the application of art to religion. The earliest Semitic religion (like that of Greece, Rome, etc.) was accordingly imageless. The first images were the stone pillar and the wooden pole or asherah (a tree fetish possibly of phalUc significance). Then came real idols, at first for domestic use (as probably the teraphim, portable household gods), and subsequently those of greater size for public worship.

2. About 15 words in OT are used specifically for images. The earliest point to the process of manufacture— graven, sculptured, molten images. The word properly meaning image, i.e. ‘likeness,’ is not earlier than the end of 7th cent. b.c. From that time onwards metaphor is frequent : images are ‘vanity,’ ‘lies,’ and objects inspiring disgust or horror [cf. the name Beelzeiul, which some interpret as = ‘lord of dung’]. Sometimes such terms would replace those used without offence in earlier days; thus, in a proper name compounded with baal (lord), the objectionable word would be replaced by bosheth (‘shame’), In obedience to Exodus 23:13 etc.

3. Images represented animals (e.g. the golden calves and the serpent Nehushtan) and human forms (cf. Ezekiel 16:17 f.: Isaiah 44:13, Psalms 115:4–8. Wisdom 14:15, 16, 2). The ephod appears to have been some sort of image, but was perhaps originally the robe worn by the image.

4. The materials used in idol manufacture were clay (Wisdom 15:13. Bel ‘), wood (Isaiah 44:15. Wisdom 13:13), silver and gold (Hosea 8:4, Daniel 3:1). They might be painted (Wisdom 13:14 15:4). dressed up (Jeremiah 10:9. Ezekiel 16:18), crowned and armed (Bar &‘■ "). They were kept In shrines (Judges 17:5. Wisdom 13:15 etc.), and secured from tumbling down (Isaiah 41:7. Jeremiah 10:4). Refreshments (Isaiah 65:11. Jeremiah 7:18) and kisses (Hosea 13:2, 1 Kings 19:18) were offered to them, as well as sacrifice and incense. They figured In processions (cf. ancient sculptures, and Isaiah 46:7. Jeremiah 10:5). See also art. Idolatry. H. F. B. Compston.