Dress – Due

Dress

In the Hebrew and Greek there is a wonderful wealth of terminology having to do with the general subject of dress among the ancient Orientals. This is reflected in the numerous synonyms for "dress" to be found in English Versions of the Bible, "apparel," "attire," "clothes," "raiment," "garments," etc. But the words used in the originals are often greatly obscured through the inconsistent variations of the translators. Besides there are few indications even in the original Hebrew or Greek of the exact shape or specific materials of the various articles of dress named, and so their identification is made doubly difficult. In dealing with the subject, therefore, the most reliable sources of information, apart from the meaning of the terms used in characterization, are certain well-known facts about the costumes and dress-customs of the orthodox Jews, and others about the forms of dress worn today by the people of simple life and primitive habits in modern Palestine. Thanks to the ultraconservatism and unchanging usages of the nearer East, this is no mean help. In the endeavor to discover, distinguish and deal with the various oriental garments, then, we will consider:

1. The Meaning of Terms;

2. The Materials;

3. The Outer Garments;

4. The Inner Garments;

5. The Headdress;

6. The Foot-gear;

7. The Dress of Jesus and His Disciples.

1. Meaning of Terms:

There was originally a sharp distinction between classical and oriental costume, but this was palpably lessened under the cosmopolitanism of the Roman Empire. This of course had its effect both in the modification of the fashions of the day and upon the words used for articles of clothing in the New Testament.

(1) The terms most used for clothes in general were, in the Old Testament, cadhin, simlah, salmah, and in the New Testament himation (Matthew 21:7; Matthew 24:18; Matthew 26:65; Luke 8:27) and enduma (Matthew 22:11 f; compare Matthew 7:15), plural, though the oldest and most widely distributed article of human apparel was probably the "loin-cloth" (Hebrew 'ezor), entirely different from "girdle" (Greek zone). Biblical references for clothes are nearly all to the costume of the males, owing doubtless to the fact that the garments ordinarily used indoors were worn alike by men and women.

(2) The three normal body garments, the ones most mentioned in the Scriptures, are cadjin, a rather long "under garment" provided with sleeves; kethoneth (Greek chiton), a long-sleeved tunic worn over the cadhin, likewise a shirt with sleeves (see Masterman, DCG, article "Dress"); and simlah (Greek himation), the cloak of the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American), used in the plural for "garments" in general; and the "girdle" (Greek zone; Arabic zunnar). The "headdress" (two types are now in use, the "turban" and the "kufiyeh") is never definitely named in the Bible, though we know it was the universal custom among ancient Orientals to cover the head.

(3) The simlah (Greek himation) signifies an "outer garment" (see below), a "mantle," or "cloak" (see lexicons). A kindred word in the Greek himatismos, (translated "raiment" in Luke 9:29, "garments" in Matthew 27:35, and "vesture" in John 19:24) stands in antithesis to himation. The Greek chiton, Hebrew kethoneth, the "under garment," is translated "coat" in Matthew 5:40, "clothes" in Mark 14:63. The Hebrew word me`il, Greek stole, Latin stola, stands for a variety of garment used only by men of rank or of the priestly order, rendered the Revised Version (British and American) "robe." It stands for the long garments of the scribes rendered "long robes" (Mark 12:38; Luke 20:46) and "best robe" in the story of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:22). (For difference between me`il and simlah, see Kennedy, one-vol HDB, 197.) Oriental influences led to the adoption of the long tunic in Rome, and in Cicero's time it was a mark of effeminacy. It came to be known in its white form as tunica alba, or "white tunic," afterward in English "alb."

Other New Testament terms are porphuran, the "purple" (Luke 16:19); the purple robe of Jesus is called himation in John 19:2; lention, "the towel" with which Jesus girded himself (13:4,5); then othonion, "linen cloth" (Luke 24:12; John 19:40); sindon, "linen cloth" (Matthew 27:59); and bussos, "fine linen" (Luke 16:19).

The primitive "aprons" of Genesis 3:7, made of "sewed fig-leaves," were quite different from the "aprons" brought to the apostles in Acts 19:12. The latter were of a species known among the Romans as semicinctium, a short "waist-cloth" worn especially by slaves (Rich, Dict. of Roman and Greek Antiq.).

2. The Materials:

Anthropology, Scripture and archaeology all witness to the use by primitive man of skins of animals as dress material (Genesis 3:21, "coats of skin"; compare Hebrews 11:37#, "went about in sheepskins, in goatskins").

Even today the traveler will occasionally see in Palestine a shepherd clad in "a coat of skin." Then, as now, goat's hair and camel's hair supplied the materials for the coarser fabrics of the poor. John the Baptist had his raiment, enduma, of camel's hair (literally, "of camel's hairs," Matthew 3:4). This was a coarse cloth made by weaving camel's hairs. There is no evidence that coats of camel's skin, like those made of goat's skin or sheep's skin have ever been worn in the East, as imagined by painters (see Meyer, Bleek, Weiss and Broadus; but compare HDB, article "Camel"). The favorite materials, however, in Palestine, as throughout the Orient, in ancient times, were wool (see Proverbs 27:26, "The lambs are for thy clothing") and flax (see Proverbs 31:13, where it is said of the ideal woman of King Lemuel, "She seeketh wool and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands"). The finest quality of ancient "linen" seems to have been the product of Egypt (see LINEN). The "silk" of Proverbs 31:22 the King James Version is really "fine linen," as in the Revised Version (British and American). The first certain mention of "silk" in the Bible, it is now conceded, is in Revelation 18:12, as the word rendered "silk" in Ezekiel 16:10,Ezekiel 16:13 is of doubtful meaning.

3. The Outer Garments:

(1) We may well begin here with the familiar saying of Jesus for a basal distinction: "If any man would go to law with thee, and take away thy coat (Greek chiton), let him have thy cloak (himation) also" (Matthew 5:40). Here the "coat" (Hebrew kethoneth) was the ordinary "inner garment" worn by the Jew of the day, in which he did the work of the day (see Matthew 24:18; Mark 13:16). It resembled the Roman "tunic," corresponding most nearly to our "long shirt," reaching below the knees always, and, in case it was designed for dress occasions, reaching almost to the ground. Sometimes "two coats" were worn (Luke 3:11; compare Matthew 10:10; Mark 6:9), but in general only one. It was this garment of Jesus that is said by John (John 19:23) to have been "without seam, woven from the top throughout."

(2) The word himation, here rendered "cloak," denotes the well-known "outer garment" of the Jews (see Matthew 9:20,Matthew 9:21; Matthew 14:36; Matthew 21:7,Matthew 21:8; but compare also Matthew 9:16; Matthew 17:2; Matthew 24:18; Matthew 26:65; Matthew 27:31,Matthew 27:35). It appears in some cases to have been a loose robe, but in most others, certainly, it was a large square piece of cloth, like a modern shawl, which could be wrapped around the person, with more or less taste and comfort. Now these two, with the "girdle" (a necessary and almost universal article of oriental dress), were commonly all the garments worn by the ordinary man of the Orient. The "outer garment" was frequently used by the poor and by the traveler as his only covering at night, just as shawls are used among us now.

(3) The common Hebrew name for this "outer garment" in the Old Testament is as above, simlah or salmah. In most cases it was of "wool," though sometimes of "linen," and was as a rule certainly the counterpart of the himation of the Greek (this is its name throughout the New Testament). It answered, too, to the pallium of the Romans. It belonged, like them, not to the endumata, or garments "put on," but to the periblemata, or garments "wrapped, around" the body. It was concerning this "cloak" that the Law of Moses provided that, if it were taken in pawn, it should be returned before sunset--"for that is his only covering, it is his raiment for his skin: wherein shall he sleep? .... for I am gracious" (Exodus 22:27). The Jewish tribunals would naturally, therefore, allow the "inner garment" to be taken by legal process, rather than the outer one (Matthew 5:40; Luke 6:29); but Jesus virtually teaches that rather than have difficulty or indulge animosity one would better yield one's rights in this, as in other matters; compare 1 Corinthians 6:7.

Some identify the simlah of the ancient Hebrews with modern aba, the coarse blouse or overcoat worn today by the Syrian peasant (Nowack, Benzinger, Mackie in HDB); but the distinction between these two garments of the Jews, so clearly made in the New Testament, seems to confirm the conclusion otherwise reached, that this Jewish "outer garment" closely resembled, if it was not identical with, the himation of the Greeks (see Jew Encyclopedia, article "Cloke" and 1-vol HDB, "Dress," 197; but compare Masterman, DCG, article "Dress," 499, and Dearmer, DCG, article "Cloke"). In no respect has the variety of renderings in our English Versions of the Bible done more to conceal from English readers the meaning of the original than in the case of this word simlah. For instance it is the "garment" with which Noah's nakedness was covered (Genesis 9:23); the "clothes" in which the Hebrews bound up, their kneading-troughs (Exodus 12:34); the "garment" of Gideon in Judges 8:25; the "raiment" of Ru (3:3); just as the himation of the New Testament is the "cloak" of Matthew 5:40, the "clothes" of Matthew 24:18 the King James Version (the Revised Version (British and American) "cloak"), the "garment" (Mark 13:16 the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) "cloak").

4. The Under Garments:

(1) In considering the under garments, contrary to the impression made by English Versions of the Bible, we must begin with the "loin-cloth" (Hebrew 'ezor), which unlike the "girdle" (see GIRDLE), was always worn next to the skin. The figurative use made of it in Isaiah 11:5, and Jeremiah 13:11, e. g. will be lost unless this is remembered. Often it was the only "under garment," as with certain of the prophets (Elijah, 2 Kings 1:8; compare John the Baptist, Matthew 3:4; Isaiah 20:2, Jeremiah 13:1 ff). In later times it was displaced among the Hebrews by the "shirt" or "tunic" (see TUNIC). The universal "sign of mourning" was the girding of the waist with an 'ezor or "hair-cloth" (English Versions, "sack-cloth"). A "loincloth" of "linen" was worn by the priests of early times and bore the special name of 'ephodh (1 Samuel 2:18; compare 2 Samuel 6:14 ff).

(2) The ordinary "under garment," later worn by all classes--certain special occasions and individuals being exceptions--was the "shirt" (Hebrew kethoneth) which, as we have seen, reappears as chiton in Greek, and tunica in Latin It is uniformly rendered "coat" in English Versions of the Bible, except that the Revised Version, margin has "tunic" in John 19:23. The well-known piece of Assyrian sculpture, representing the siege and capture of Lachish by Sennacherib, shows the Jewish captives, male and female, dressed in a moderately tight garment, fitting close to the neck (compare Job 30:18) and reaching almost to the ankles; which must represent the kethoneth, or kuttoneth of the period, as worn in towns at least. Probably the kuttoneth of the peasantry was both looser and shorter, resembling more the modern kamis of the Syrian fellah (compare Latin camisa, and English "chemise").

(3) As regards sleeves, they are not expressly mentioned in the Old Testament, but the Lachish tunics mentioned above have short sleeves, reaching half-way to the elbows. This probably represents the prevailing type of sleeve among the Hebrews of the earlier period. An early Egyptian picture of a group of Semitic traders (circa 2000 BC) shows a colored tunic without sleeves, which, fastened on the left shoulder, left the right bare. Another variety of sleeves, restricted to the upper and wealthy classes, had long and wide sleeves reaching to the ground. This was the tunic worn by Tamar, the royal princess (2 Samuel 13:18, "A garment of divers colors upon her; for with such robes were the king's daughters that were virgins appareled"), "the tunic of (i.e. reaching to) palms and soles" worn by Joseph, familiarly known as the "coat of many colors" (Genesis 37:3), a rendering which represents now an abandoned tradition (compare Kennedy, HDB). The long white linen tunic, which was the chief garment of the ordinary Jewish priest of the later period, had sleeves, which, for special reasons, were tied to the arms (compare Josephus, Ant., III, vii, 2).

(4) Ultimately it became usual, even with the people of the lower ranks, to wear an under "tunic," or "real shirt" (Josephus, Ant., XVII, vi, 7; Mishna, passim, where it is called chaluq). In this case the upper tunic, the kuttoneth proper, would be removed at night (compare Song of Songs 5:3, "I have put off my garment").

The material for the tunic might be either

(1) woven on the loom in two pieces, and afterward put together without cutting (compare Dict. of Roman and Greek Antiq., article "Tunica"), or

(2) the garment might be woven whole on a special loom, "without seam," i.e. so as to require no sewing, as we know from the description given in John 19:23, and from other sources, was the chiton worn by our Lord just before His crucifixion. The garments intended by the Hebrew (Daniel 3:21–27), rendered "coats" the King James Version, have not been certainly made out. The King James Version margin has "mantles" the English Revised Version "hosen" the American Standard Revised Version "breeches" (see HOSEN). For "coat of mail" (1 Samuel 17:5) see ARMOR.

5. The Headdress:

When the Hebrews first emerged into view, they seem to have had no covering for the head except on special demand, as in case of war, when a leather-helmet was worn (see ARMOR). Ordinarily, as with the fellah of Palestine today, a rope or cord served as a fillet (compare 1 Kings 20:32, and Virgil, Aeneid (Dryden), iv.213: "A golden fillet binds his awful brows"). Such "fillets" may be seen surviving in the representation of Syrians on the monuments of Egypt. Naturally, in the course of time, exposure to the Syrian sun in the tropical summer time would compel recourse to some such covering as the modern kufiyeh, which lets in the breeze, but protects in a graceful, easy way, the head, the neck and the shoulders. The headgear of Ben- hadad's tribute carriers (see above) resembles the Phrygian cap.

The head covering, however, which is best attested, at least for the upper ranks of both sexes, is the turban (Hebrew tsaniph, from a root meaning to "wind round"). It is the ladies' "hood" of Isaiah 3:23, the Revised Version (British and American) "turban"; the "royal diadem" of Isaiah 62:3, and the "mitre" of Zechariah 3:5, the Revised Version, margin "turban" or "diadem." Ezekiel's description of a lady's headdress: "I bound thee with attire of fine linen" (Ezekiel 16:10 margin), points to a turban. For the egg-shaped turban of the priests see BONNET (the Revised Version (British and American) "head-tires"). The hats of Daniel 3:21 (the Revised Version (British and American) "mantles") are thought by some to have been the conical Babylonian headdress seen on the monuments. According to 2 Macc 4:12 the Revised Version (British and American) the young Jewish nobles were compelled by Antiochus Epiphanes to wear the petasos, the low, broad-brimmed hat associated with Hermes. Other forms of headdress were in use in New Testament times, as we learn from the Mishna, as well as from the New Testament, e. g. the suddar (soudarion) from Latin sudarium (a cloth for wiping off perspiration, sudor) which is probably the "napkin" of John 11:44; John 20:7, although there it appears as a kerchief, or covering, for the head. The female captives from Lachish (see above) wear over their tunics an upper garment, which covers the forehead and falls down over the shoulders to the ankles. Whether this is the garment intended by the Hebrew in Ruth 3:15, rendered "vail" by the King James Version and "mantle" by the Revised Version (British and American), and "kerchiefs for the head" (Ezekiel 13:18 the Revised Version (British and American)), we cannot say. The "veil" with which Rebekah and Tamar "covered themselves" (Genesis 24:65; Genesis 38:14) was most likely a large "mantle" in which the whole body could be wrapped, like the cadhin (see above). But it seems impossible to draw a clear distinction between "mantle" and "veil" in the Old Testament (Kennedy). The case of Moses (Exodus 34:33) gives us the only express mention of a "face-veil."

6. Footgear:

The ancient Hebrews, like Orientals in general, went barefoot within doors. Out of doors they usually wore sandals, less frequently shoes. The simplest form of sandal then, as now, consisted of a sole of untanned leather, bound to the foot by a leather thong, the shoe-latchet of Genesis 14:23 and the latchet of Mark 1:7, etc. In the obelisk of Shalmaneser, however, Jehu's attendants are distinguished by shoes completely covering the feet, from the Assyrians, who are represented as wearing sandals fitted with a heel-cap. Ladies of Ezekiel's day wore shoes of "sealskin" (Ezekiel 16:10 the Revised Version (British and American)). The soldiers' "laced boot" may be intended in Isaiah 9:5 (the Revised Version (British and American), margin). Then, as now, on entering the house of a friend, or a sacred precinct (Exodus 3:5; Joshua 5:15), or in case of mourning (2 Samuel 15:30), the sandals, or shoes, were removed. The priests performed their offices in the Temple in bare feet (compare the modern requirement on entering a mosque).

7. The Dress of Jesus and His Disciples:

In general we may say that the clothes worn by Christ and His disciples were of the simplest and least sumptuous kinds. A special interest must attach even to the clothes that Jesus wore. These consisted, it seems quite certain, not of just five separate articles (see Edersheim, LTJM, I, 625), but of six. In His day it had become customary to wear a linen shirt (chaluq) beneath the tunic (see above). That our Lord wore such a "shirt" seems clear from the mention of the laying aside of the upper garments (himatia, plural), i.e. the "mantle" and the "tunic," before washing His disciples' feet (John 13:4). The tunic proper worn by Him, as we have seen, was "woven without seam" throughout, and was of the kind, therefore, that fitted closely about the neck, and had short sleeves. Above the tunic would naturally be the linen girdle, wound several times about the waist. On His feet were leather sandals (Matthew 3:11). His upper garment was of the customary sort and shape, probably of white woolen cloth, as is suggested by the details of the account of the Transfiguration (Mark 9:3), with the four prescribed "tassels" at the corners. As to His headdress, we have no description of it, but we may set it down as certain that no Jewish teacher of that day would appear in public with the head uncovered. He probably wore the customary white linen "napkin" (sudarium), wound round the head as a turban, with the ends of it falling down over the neck. The dress of His disciples was, probably, not materially different.

In conclusion it may be said that, although the dress of even orthodox Jews today is as various as their lands of residence and their languages, yet there are two garments worn by them the world over, the Tallith and the 'arba` kanephoth (see DCG, article "Dress," col. 1). Jews who affect special sanctity, especially those living in the Holy Land, still wear the Tallith all day, as was the common custom in Christ's time. As the earliest mention of the 'arba` kanephoth is in 1350 AD, it is clear that it cannot have existed in New Testament times.

LITERATURE.

Nowack's and Benzinger's Hebrew Archaologie; Tristram, Eastern Customs in Bible Lands; Rich, Dict. of Roman and Greek Antiq.; Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 625, and elsewhere; articles on "Dress," "Clothing," "Costumes," etc., HDB, DCG, Jew Encyclopedia (by Noldeke) in Encyclopedia Biblica (by Abrahams and Cook); Masterman, "Dress and Personal Adornment in Mod. Palestine," in Biblical World, 1902, etc.

George B. Eager

Drink

See FOOD; DRINK, STRONG.

Drink Offering

See SACRIFICE.

Drink, Strong

(shekhar; sikera; from shakhar, "to be or become drunk"; probably from the same root as sugar, saccharine): With the exception of Numbers 28:7, "strong drink" is always coupled with "wine." The two terms are commonly used as mutually exclusive, and as together exhaustive of all kinds of intoxicants.

Originally shekhar seems to have been a general term for intoxicating drinks of all kinds, without reference to the material out of which they were made; and in that sense, it would include wine. Reminiscences of this older usage may be found in Numbers 28:7 (where shekhar is clearly equivalent to wine, as may be seen by comparing it with 28:14, and with Exodus 29:40, where the material of the drink offering is expressly designated "wine").

When the Hebrews were living a nomadic life, before their settlement in Canaan, the grape-wine was practically unknown to them, and there would be no need of a special term to describe it. But when they settled down to an agricultural life, and came to cultivate the vine, it would become necessary to distinguish it from the older kinds of intoxicants; hence, the borrowed word yayin ("wine") was applied to the former, while the latter would be classed together under the old term shekhar, which would then come to mean all intoxicating beverages other than wine (Leviticus 10:9; Numbers 6:3; Deuteronomy 14:26; Proverbs 20:1; Isaiah 24:9). The exact nature of these drinks is not clearly indicated in the Bible itself. The only fermented beverage other than grape-wine specifically named is pomegranate-wine (Song of Songs 8:2: "the juice of my pomegranate," the Revised Version, margin "sweet wine of my pomegranate"); but we may infer that other kinds of shekhar besides that obtained from pomegranates were in use, such as drinks made from dates, honey, raisins, barley, apples, etc. Probably Jerome (circa 400 AD) was near the mark when he wrote, "Sikera in the Hebrew tongue means every kind of drink which can intoxicate, whether made from grain or from the juice of apples, or when honeycombs are boiled down into a sweet and strange drink, or the fruit of palm oppressed into liquor, and when water is colored and thickened from boiled herbs" (Ep. ad Nepotianum). Thus shekhar is a comprehensive term for all kinds of fermented drinks, excluding wine.

Probably the most common sort of shekhar used in Biblical times was palm or date-wine. This is not actually mentioned in the Bible, and we do not meet with its Hebrew name yen temarim ("wine of dates") until the Talmudic period. But it is frequently referred to in the Assyrian-Babylonian contract tablets (cuneiform), and from this and other evidence we infer that it was very well known among the ancient Semitic peoples. Moreover, it is known that the palm tree flourished abundantly in Biblical lands, and the presumption is therefore very strong that wine made of the juice of dates was a common beverage. It must not be supposed, however, that the term shekhar refers exclusively to date-wine. It rather designates all intoxicating liquors other than grape-wine, while in few cases it probably includes even wine.

There can be no doubt that shekhar was intoxicating. This is proved

(1) from the etymology of the word, it being derived from shakhar, "to be or become drunk" (Genesis 9:21; Isaiah 29:9; Jeremiah 25:27, etc.); compare the word for drunkard (shikkar), and for drunkenness (shikkaron) from the same root;

(2) from descriptions of its effects: e. g. Isaiah graphically describes the stupefying effect of shekhar on those who drink it excessively (Isaiah 28:7,Isaiah 28:8).

Hannah defended herself against the charge of being drunk by saying, "I have drunk neither wine nor strong drink," i.e. neither wine nor any other intoxicating liquor (1 Samuel 1:15). The attempt made to prove that it was simply the unfermented juice of certain fruits is quite without foundation. Its immoderate use is strongly condemned (Isaiah 5:11,Isaiah 5:12; Proverbs 20:1; see DRUNKENNESS). It was forbidden to ministering priests (Leviticus 10:9), and to Nazirites (Numbers 6:3; Judges 13:4,Revelation 12:7,Revelation 12:14; compare Luke 1:15), but was used in the sacrificial meal as drink offering (Numbers 28:7), and could be bought with the tithe-money and consumed by the worshipper in the temple (Deuteronomy 14:26). It is commended to the weak and perishing as a means of deadening their pain; but not to princes, lest it might lead them to pervert justice (Proverbs 31:4–7).

D. Miall Edwards

Dromedary

drum'-e-da-ri, drom'-e-da-ri. See CAMEL.

Drop, Dropping

"To drop" expresses a "distilling" or "dripping" of a fluid (Judges 5:4; Proverbs 3:20; Song of Songs 5:5,Song of Songs 5:13; Joel 3:18; Amos 9:13; compare 1 Samuel 14:26, "the honey dropped" (margin "a stream of honey")); Job 29:22 and Isaiah 45:8 read "distil" (the King James Version "drop"). The continuous "droppings" of rain through a leaking roof (roofs were usually made of clay in Palestine, and always liable to cracks and leakage) on a "very rainy day" is compared to a contentious wife (Proverbs 19:13; Proverbs 27:15); "What is described is the irritating, unceasing, sound of the fall, drop after drop, of water through the chinks in the roof" (Plumptre, in the place cited); compare also the King James Version Ecclesiastes 10:18 (the Revised Version (British and American) "leaketh").

Dropsy

drop'-si (hudropikos, "a man afflicted with hudrops or dropsy"): Both forms of this disease occur in Palestine, that in which the limbs and body are distended with water called anasarca, depending generally on cardiac or renal disease, and the form confined to the abdomen, usually the result of liver infection. The latter is the commoner, as liver disease is a frequent result of recurrent attacks of malarial fever. The man was evidently able to move about, as he had entered into the Pharisee's house (Luke 14:2).

Dross

dros (sigh): The refuse of smelting of precious metal (Proverbs 25:4; Proverbs 26:23); used figuratively of what is base or worthless (Isaiah 1:22,Isaiah 1:25; Ezekiel 22:18,Ezekiel 22:19; Psalms 119:119).

Drought

drout. See FAMINE.

Drove

drov. See CATTLE.

Drowning

droun'-ing. See PUNISHMENTS.

Drum

drum (tumpanon): This was the Hebrew toph, "tabret" or "timbrel," a hand-drum, consisting of a ring of wood or metal covered with a tightly drawn skin, with small pieces of metal hung around the rim, like a tambourine. It was raised in the one hand and struck with the other, usually by women, but sometimes also by men, at festivities and on occasions of rejoicing. See 1 Macc 9:39, the Revised Version (British and American) "timbrels."

Drunkenness

I. Its Prevalance.

The Bible affords ample proof that excessive drinking of intoxicants was a common vice among the Hebrews, as among other ancient peoples. This is evident not only from individual cases of intoxication, as Noah (Genesis 9:21), Lot (Genesis 19:33,Genesis 19:15), Nabal (1 Samuel 25:36), Uriah made drunk by David (2 Samuel 11:13), Amnon (2 Samuel 13:28), Elah, king of Israel (1 Kings 16:9), Benhadad, king of Syria, and his confederates (1 Kings 20:16), Holofernes (Judith 13:2), etc., but also from frequent references to drunkenness as a great social evil. Thus, Amos proclaims judgment on the voluptuous and dissolute rulers of Samaria "that drink wine in (large) bowls" (Amos 6:6), and the wealthy ladies who press their husbands to join them in a carousal (Amos 4:1); he also complains that this form of self-indulgence was practiced even at the expense of the poor and under the guise of religion, at the sacrificial meals (Amos 2:8; see also Isaiah 5:11,Isaiah 5:12,Isaiah 5:22; Isaiah 28:1–8; Isaiah 56:11 f). Its prevalence is also reflected in many passages in the New Testament (e. g. Matthew 24:49; Luke 21:34; Acts 2:13,Acts 2:15; Ephesians 5:18; 1 Thessalonians 5:7). Paul complains that at Corinth even the love- feast of the Christian church which immediately preceded the celebration of the Eucharist, was sometimes the scene of excessive drinking (1 Corinthians 11:21). It must, however, be noted that it is almost invariably the well-to-do who are charged with this vice in the Bible. There is no evidence to prove that it prevailed to any considerable extent among the common people. Intoxicants were then an expensive luxury, beyond the reach of the poorer classes. See DRINK, STRONG.

II. Its Symptoms and Effects.

These are most vividly portrayed:

(1) some of its physical symptoms (Job 12:25; Psalms 107:27; Proverbs 23:29; Isaiah 19:14; Isaiah 28:8; Isaiah 29:9; Jeremiah 25:16);

(2) its mental effects: exhilaration (Genesis 43:34), jollity and mirth (1 Esdras 3:20), forgetfulness (1 Esdras 3:20), loss of understanding and balance of judgment (Isaiah 28:7; Hosea 4:11);

(3) its effects on man's happiness and prosperity: its immediate effect is to make one oblivious of his misery; but ultimately it "biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder," and leads to woe and sorrow (Proverbs 23:29–32) and to poverty (Proverbs 23:21; compare Proverbs 21:17; Ecclesiasticus 19:1); hence, wine is called a "mocker" deceiving the unwise (Proverbs 20:1);

(4) its moral and spiritual effects: it leads to a maladministration of justice (Proverbs 31:5; Isaiah 5:23), provokes anger and a contentious, brawling spirit (Proverbs 20:1; Proverbs 23:29; 1 Esdras 3:22; Ecclesiasticus 31:26,29 f), and conduces to a profligate life (Ephesians 5:18; "riot," literally, profligacy). It is allied with gambling and licentiousness (Joel 3:3), and indecency (Genesis 9:21 f). Above all, it deadens the spiritual sensibilities, produces a callous indifference to religious influences and destroys all serious thought (Isaiah 5:12).

III. Attitude of the Bible to the Drink Question.

Intemperance is condemned in uncompromising terms by the Old Testament and the New Testament, as well as by the semi- canonical writings. While total abstinence is not prescribed as a formal and universal rule, broad principles are laid down, especially in the New Testament, which point in that direction.

1. In the Old Testament:

In the Old Testament, intemperance is most repugnant to the stern ethical rigorism of the prophets, as well as to the more utilitarian sense of propriety of the "wisdom" writers. As might be expected, the national conscience was but gradually quickened to the evil of immoderate drinking. In the narratives of primitive times, excessive indulgence, or at least indulgence to the point of exhilaration, is mentioned without censure as a natural thing, especially on festive occasions (as in Genesis 43:34 the Revised Version, margin). But a conscience more sensitive to the sinfulness of overindulgence was gradually developed, and is reflected in the denunciations of the prophets and the warning of the wise men (compare references under I and II, especially Isaiah 5:11 f,Isaiah 22:1–25; Isaiah 28:1–8;Proverbs 23:29–33). Nowhere is the principle of total abstinence inculcated as a rule applicable to all. In particular cases it was recognized as a duty. Priests while on duty in the sanctuary were to abstain from wine and strong drink (Leviticus 10:9; compare Ezekiel 44:21). Nazirites were to abstain from all intoxicants during the period of their vows (Numbers 6:3 f; compare Amos 2:12), yet not on account of the intoxicating qualities of wine, but because they represented the simplicity of the older pastoral life, as against the Canaanite civilization which the vine symbolized (W. R. Smith, Prophets of Israel, 84 f). So also the Rechabites abstained from wine (Jeremiah 35:6,Jeremiah 35:8,Jeremiah 35:14) and social conveniences, because they regarded the nomadic life as more conducive to Yahweh-worship than agricultural and town life, with its temptations to Baal-worship. In Daniel and his comrades we have another instance of voluntary abstinence (Daniel 1:8–16). These, however, are isolated instances. Throughout the Old Testament the use of wine appears as practically universal, and its value is recognized as a cheering beverage (Judges 9:13; Psalms 104:15; Proverbs 31:7), which enables the sick to forget their pains (Proverbs 31:6). Moderation, however, is strongly inculcated and there are frequent warnings against the temptation and perils of the cup.

2. Deutero-Canonical and Extra-Canonical Writings:

In Apocrypha, we have the attitude of prudence and common sense, but the prophetic note of stern denunciation is wanting. The path of wisdom is the golden mean. "Wine is as good as life to men, if thou drink it in its measure; .... wine drunk in season and to satisfy is joy of heart, and gladness of soul: wine drunk largely is bitterness of soul, with provocation and conflict" (Ecclesiasticus 31:27-30 the Revised Version (British and American)). A vivid picture of the effects of wine-drinking is given in 1 Esdras. 3:18-24. Stronger teaching on the subject is given in the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs. The use of wine is permitted to him who can use it temperately, but abstinence is enjoined as the wiser course (Testament to the Twelve Patriarchs, Judges 16:3).

3. In the New Testament:

In the New Testament, intemperance is treated as a grave sin. Only once, indeed, does our Lord explicitly condemn drunkenness (Luke 21:34), though it is implicitly condemned in other passages (Matthew 24:49 = Luke 12:45). The meagerness of the references in our Lord's teaching is probably due to the fact already mentioned, that it was chiefly prevalent among the wealthy, and not among the poorer classes to whom our Lord mainly ministered. The references in Paul's writings are very numerous (Galatians 5:21; Ephesians 5:18, et al.). Temperance and sobriety in all things are everywhere insisted on (e. g. Acts 24:25; Galatians 5:23; 2 Peter 1:6). A bishop and those holding honorable position in the church should not be addicted to wine (1 Timothy 3:2 Titus 1:7 Titus 2:2 f). Yet Jesus and His apostles were not ascetics, and the New Testament gives no rough-and-ready prohibition of strong drink on principle. In contrast with John the Baptist, who was a Nazirite from birth (Luke 1:15), Jesus was called by His enemies a "wine-bibber" (Matthew 11:19). He took part in festivities in which wine was drunk (John 2:10).

There are indications that He regarded wine as a source of innocent enjoyment (Luke 5:38 Luke 17:8). To insist on a distinction between intoxicating and unfermented wine is a case of unjustifiable special pleading. It must be borne in mind that the drink question is far more complex and acute in modern than in Biblical times, and that the conditions of the modern world have given rise to problems which were not within the horizon of New Testament writers. The habit of excessive drinking has spread enormously among the common people, owing largely to the cheapening of alcoholic drinks. The fact that the evil exists today in greater proportions may call for a drastic remedy and a special crusade. But rather than defend total abstinence by a false or forced exegesis, it were better to admit that the principle is not formally laid down in the New Testament, while maintaining that there are broad principles enunciated, which in view of modern conditions should lead to voluntary abstinence from all intoxicants. Such principles may be found, e. g. in our Lord's teaching in Matthew 16:24 f; Mark 9:42 f, and in the great Pauline passages--Romans 14:13–21; 1 Corinthians 8:8–13.

IV. Drunkenness in Metaphor.

Drunkenness very frequently supplies Biblical writers with striking metaphors and similes. Thus, it symbolizes intellectual or spiritual perplexity (Job 12:25; Isaiah 19:14; Jeremiah 23:9), bewilderment and helplessness under calamity (Jeremiah 13:13; Ezekiel 23:33). It furnishes a figure for the movements of sailors on board ship in a storm (Psalms 107:27), and for the convulsions of the earth on the day of Yahweh (Isaiah 24:20). Yahweh's "cup of staggering" is a symbol of affliction, the fury of the Lord causing stupor and confusion (Isaiah 51:17–23; compare Isaiah 63:6; Jeremiah 25:15 Ezekiel 23:33; Psalms 75:8). The sword and the arrow are said to be sodden with drink like a drunkard with wine (Deuteronomy 32:42; Jeremiah 46:10). In the Apocalypse, Babylon (i.e. Rome) is portrayed under the figure of a "great harlot" who makes kings "drunken with the wine of her fornication"; and who is herself "drunken with the blood of the saints, and ... of the martyrs of Jesus" (Revelation 17:2,Revelation 17:6).

D. Miall Edwards

Drusilla

droo-sil'-a (Drousilla, or Drousilla): Wife of Felix, a Jewess, who along with her husband "heard (Paul) concerning the faith in Christ Jesus" during Paul's detention in Caesarea (Acts 24:24).

Beta text gives the rendering "Drusilla the wife of Felix, a Jewess, asked to see Paul and to hear the word." The fact that Drusilla was a Jewess explains her curiosity, but Paul, who was probably acquainted with the past history of her and Felix, refused to satisfy their request in the way they desired, and preached to them instead concerning righteousness and self-restraint and the final judgment. At this "Felix was terrified" (Acts 24:25). Beta text states that Paul's being left in bonds on the retirement of Felix was due to the desire of the latter to please Drusilla (compare Acts 24:27). Probably this explanation, besides that of the accepted text, was true also, as Drusilla, who was a member of the ruling house, saw in Paul an enemy of its power, and hated him for his condemnation of her own private sins.

The chief other source of information regarding Drusilla is Josephus. Drusilla was the youngest of the three daughters of Agrippa I, her sisters being Bernice and Mariamne. She was born about 36 AD and was married when 14 years old to Azizus, king of Emeza. Shortly afterward she was induced to desert her husband by Felix, who employed a Cyprian sorcerer, Simon by name, to carry out his purpose. She was also influenced to take this step by the cruelty of Azizus and the hatred of Bernice who was jealous of her beauty. Her marriage with Felix took place about 54 AD and by him she had one son, Agrippa, who perished under Titus in an eruption of Mt. Vesuvius. The mention by Josephus of "the woman" who perished along with Agrippa (Ant., XX, vii, 2) refers probably not to his mother Drusilla but to his wife.

C. M. Kerr

Due

du. See DUTY.