S
Sanctuary – Sarah; Sarai
Page 603 of 710
Sanctuary
sank'-tu-a-ri, sank'-tu-a-ri (miqdash, miqqedhash, qodhesh, "holy place"; hagion):
1. Nature of Article
2. The Graf-Wellhausen Hypothesis
The Three Stages
3. Difficulties of the Theory
(1) Slaughter Not Necessarily Sacrificial
(2) Sacrifice and Theophany
(3) Alleged Plurality of Sanctuaries
(4) The Altar of God's House
(5) Local Altars in Deuteronomy
4. The Alternative View
(1) Lay Sacrifice
(2) Three Pilgrimage Festivals
5. The Elephantine Papyri
The Elephantine Temple
LITERATURE
1. Nature of Article:
The present article is designed to supplement the articles on ALTAR; HIGH PLACE; PENTATEUCH; TABERNACLE; TEMPLE, by giving an outline of certain rival views of the course of law and history as regards the place of worship. The subject has a special importance because it was made the turning-point of Wellhausen's discussion of the development of Israel's literature, history and religion. He himself writes: "I differ from Graf chiefly in this, that I always go back to the centralization of the cult, and deduce from it the particular divergences. My whole position is contained in my first chapter" (Prolegomena, 368). For the purposes of this discussion it is necessary to use the symbols J, E, D, H, and the Priestly Code (P), which are explained in the article PENTATEUCH.
It is said that there are three distinct stages of law and history.
2. The Graf-Wellhausen Hypothesis:
The Three Stages:
(1) In the first stage all slaughter of domestic animals for food purposes was sacrificial, and every layman could sacrifice locally at an altar of earth or unhewn stones. The law of JE is contained in , providing for the making of an altar of earth or stones, and emphasis is laid on the words "in every place ("in all the place" is grammatically an equally possible rendering) where I record my name I will come unto thee and I will bless thee." This, it is claimed, permits a plurality of sanctuaries. Illustrations are provided by the history. The patriarchs move about the country freely and build altars at various places. Later sacrifices or altars are mentioned in connection with Jethro (), Moses (, etc.), Joshua (), Gideon ( etc.), Manoah (), Samuel (, etc.), Elijah (), to take but a few instances. Perhaps the most instructive case is that of Saul after the battle of Michmash. Observing that the people were eating meat with blood, he caused a large stone to be rolled to him, and we are expressly told that this was the first altar that he built to the Lord (). While some of these examples might be accounted for by theophanies or other special circumstances, they are too numerous when taken together for such an explanation to suffice. In many instances they represent the conduct of the most authoritative and religious leaders of the age, e.g. Samuel, and it must be presumed that such men knew and acted upon the Law of their own day. Hence, the history and the Law of are in unison in permitting a multiplicity of sanctuaries. Wellhausen adds: "Altars as a rule are not built by the patriarchs according to their own private judgment wheresoever they please; on the contrary, a theophany calls attention to, or, at least afterward, confirms, the holiness of the place" (op. cit., 31).
(2) The second stage is presented by Deuteronomy in the Law and Josiah's reformation in the history. Undoubtedly, permits local non-sacrificial slaughter for the purposes of food, and enjoins the destruction of heathen places of worship, insisting with great vehemence on the central sanctuary. The narrative of Josiah's reformation in tallies with these principles.
(3) The third great body of law (the Priestly Code, P) does not deal with the question (save in one passage, ). In Deuteronomy "the unity of the cult is commanded; in the Priestly Code it is presupposed. .... What follows from this forms the question before us. To my thinking, this: that the Priestly Code rests upon the result which is only the aim of Deuteronomy" (Prolegomena, 35). Accordingly, it is later than the latter book and dates from about the time of Ezra. As to , this belongs to H (the Law of Holiness, :46), an older collection of laws than the Priestly Code (P), and is taken up in the latter. Its intention was "to secure the exclusive legitimation of the one lawful place of sacrifice. .... Plainly the common man did not quite understand the newly drawn and previously quite unknown distinction between the religious and the profane act" (Prolegomena, 50). Accordingly, this legislator strove to meet the difficulty by the new enactment.
See CRITICISM (The Graf-Wellhausen Hypothesis).
3. Difficulties of the Theory:
(1) Slaughter Not Necessarily Sacrificial
The general substratum afforded by the documentary theory falls within the scope of the article PENTATEUCH. The present discussion is limited to the legal and historical outline traced above. The view that all slaughter of domestic animals was sacrificial till the time of Josiah is rebutted by the evidence of the early books. The following examples should be noted: in a calf is slain without any trace of a sacrifice, and in 27:9-14 (Jacob's substitute for venison) no altar or religious rite can fairly be postulated. In the slaughter is performed by a woman, so that here again sacrifice is out of the question. If Gideon performed a sacrifice when he "made ready a kid" () or when he killed an animal for the broth of which the narrative speaks, the animals in question must have been sacrificed twice over, once when they were killed and again when the food was consumed by flames. Special importance attaches to (Hebrew 21:37), for there the JE legislation itself speaks of slaughter by cattle thieves as a natural and probable occurrence, and it can surely not have regarded this as a sacrificial act. Other instances are to be found in ; ; . In the word translated "cooks" means literally, "women slaughterers." All these instances are prior to the date assigned to Deuteronomy. With respect to also, theory is unworkable. At any time in King Josiah's reign or after, it would have been utterly impossible to limit all slaughter of animals for the whole race wherever resident to one single spot. This part of theory therefore breaks down.
(2) Sacrifice and Theophany
The view that the altars were erected at places that were peculiarly holy, or at any rate were subsequently sanctified by a theophany, is also untenable. In the Patriarchal age we may refer to , where the calling on God implies sacrifice but not theophanies, Abram at Beth-el (12:8) and Mamre (13:18), and Jacob's sacrifices (31:54; 33:20). Compare later Samuel's altar at Ramah, Adonijah's sacrifice at En-rogel (), Naaman's earth (), David's clan's sacrifice (,). It is impossible to postulate theophanies for the sacrifices of every clan in the country, and it becomes necessary to translate "in all the place" (see supra 2, (1)) and to understand "the place" as the territory of Israel.
(3) Alleged Plurality of Sanctuaries
The hypothesis of a multiplicity of sanctuaries in JE and the history also leaves out of view many most important facts. The truth is that the word "sanctuary" is ambiguous and misleading. A plurality of altars of earth or stone is not a plurality of sanctuaries. The early legislation knows a "house of Yahweh" in addition to the primitive altars (; ; compare the parts of , assigned to J). No eyewitness could mistake a house for an altar, or vice versa.
(4) The Altar of God's House
Moreover a curious little bit of evidence shows that the "house" had quite a different kind of altar. In f; 2:28 ff, we hear of the horns of the altar (compare ). Neither earth nor unhewn stones (as required by the Law of ) could provide such horns, and the historical instances of the altars of the patriarchs, religious leaders, etc., to which reference has been made, show that they had no horns. Accordingly, we are thrown back on the description of the great altar of burnt offering in and must assume that an altar of this type was to be found before the ark before Solomon built his Temple. Thus the altar of the House of God was quite different from the customary lay altar, and when we read of "mine altar" as a refuge in , we must refer it to the former, as is shown by the passages just cited. In addition to the early legislation and the historical passages cited as recognizing a House of God with a horned altar, we see such a house in Shiloh where Eli and his sons of the house of Aaron () ministered. Thus the data of both JE and the history show us a House of God with a horned altar side by side with the multiplicity of stone or earthen altars, but give us no hint of a plurality of legitimate houses or shrines or sanctuaries.
(5) Local Altars in Deuteronomy
Deuteronomy also recognizes a number of local altars in 16:21 (see ICC, at the place) and so does Later Deuteronomistic editors in ff. There is no place for any of these passages ia the Wellhausen theory; but again we find one house side by side with many lay altars.
4. The Alternative View:
(1) Lay Sacrifice
The alternative view seeks to account for the whole of the facts noted above. In bald outline it is as follows: In pre-Mosaic times customary sacrifices had been freely offered by laymen at altars of earth or stone which were not "sanctuaries," but places that could be used for the nonce and then abandoned. Slaughter, as shown by the instances cited, was not necessarily sacrificial. Moses did not forbid or discourage the custom he found. On the contrary, he regulated it in ; f to prevent possible abuses. But he also superimposed two other kinds of sacrifice--certain new offerings to be brought by individuals to the religious capital and the national offerings of ; and other passages. If the Priestly Code (P) assumes the religious capital as axiomatic, the reason is that this portion of the Law consists of teaching entrusted to the priests, embracing the procedure to be followed in these two classes of offerings, and does not refer at all to the procedure at customary lay sacrifices, which was regulated by immemorial custom. Deuteronomy thunders not against the lay altars--which are never even mentioned in this connection--but against the Canaanite high places. Deuteronomy 12 contemplates only the new individual offerings. The permission of lay slaughter for food was due to the fact that the infidelity of the Israelites in the wilderness () had led to the universal prohibition of lay slaughter for the period of the wanderings only, though it appears to be continued by De for those who lived near the House of God (see , limited to the case "if the place .... be too far from thee").
(2) Three Pilgrimage Festivals.
The JE legislation itself recognizes the three pilgrimage festivals of the House of God ( f). One of these festivals is called "the feast of weeks, even of the bikkurim (a kind of first-fruits) of wheat harvest," and as and 34:26 require these bikkurim to be brought to the House of God and not to a lay altar, it follows that the pilgrimages are as firmly established here as in Deuteronomy. Thus we find a House (with a horned altar) served by priests and lay altars of earth or stone side by side in law and history till the exile swept them all away, and by breaking the continuity of tradition and practice paved the way for a new and artificial interpretation of the Law that was far removed from the intent of the lawgiver.
5. The Elephantine Papyri:
The Elephantine Temple.
Papyri have recently been found at Elephantine which show us a Jewish community in Egypt which in 405 BC possessed a local temple. On the Wellhausen hypothesis it is usual to assume that the Priestly Code (P) and Deuteronomy were still unknown and not recognized as authoritative in this community at that date, although the Deuteronomic law of the central sanctuary goes back at least to 621. It is difficult to understand how a law that had been recognized as divine by Jeremiah and others could still have been unknown or destitute of authority. On the alternative view this phenomenon will have been the result of an interpretation of the Law to suit the needs of an age some 800 years subsequent to the death of Moses in circumstances he never contemplated. The Pentateuch apparently permits sacrifice only in the land of Israel: in the altered circumstances the choice lay between interpreting the Law in this way or abandoning public worship altogether; for the synagogue with its non-sacrificial form of public worship had not yet been invented. All old legislations have to be construed in this way to meet changing circumstances, and this example contains nothing exceptional or surprising.
LITERATURE
J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel, chapter i, for the critical hypothesis; H. M. Wiener, EPC, chapter vi, PS passim for the alternative view; POT, 173 ff.
Harold M. Wiener
Sand
(chol; ammos; a variant of the more usual psammos; compare amathos, psamathos): Sand is principally produced by the grinding action of waves. This is accompanied by chemical solution, with the result that the more soluble constituents of the rock diminish in amount or disappear and the sands tend to become more or less purely silicious, silica or quartz being a common constituent of rocks and very Insoluble. The rocks of Palestine are so largely composed of limestone that the shore and dune sands are unusually calcareous, containing from 10 to 20 per cent of calcium carbonate. This is subject to solution and redeposition as a cement between the sand grains, binding them together to form the porous sandstone of the seashore, which is easily worked and is much used in building.
See Rock, III, (2).
Figurative:
(1) Used most often as a symbol of countless multitude; especially of the children of Israel (; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ); also of the enemies of Israel (; ; ; compare ). Joseph laid up gram as the sand of the sea (); God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding and largeness of heart as the sand that is on the seashore (); Job says "I shall multiply my days as the sand" (); the multitude of quails provided for the Israelites in the desert is compared to the sand (); the Psalmist says of the thoughts of God, "They are more in number than the sand" (); Jeremiah, speaking of the desolation of Jerusalem, says that the number of widows is as the sand ().
(2) Sand is also a symbol of weight (; ), and
(3) of instability ().
It is a question what is meant by "the hidden treasures of the sand" in .
Alfred Ely Day
Sand Flies
sand'-fliz (kinnim ( margin; /RAPC Wis 19:10 margin)): English Versions of the Bible "lice."
See FLEA; GNAT; INSECTS; LICE.
Sand, Glowing
glo'-ing.
See MIRAGE.
Sand-Lizard
sand'-liz-ard. (chomeT; Septuagint saura, "lizard"; the King James Version snail): ChomeT is 7th in the list of unclean "creeping things" in ,, and occurs nowhere else. It is probably a skink or some species of Lacerta.
See LIZARD
Sandal
san'-dal.
See DRESS, sec. 6; SHOE; SHOE-LATCHET.
Sanhedrin
san'-he-drin (canhedhrin, the Talmudic transcription of the Greek sunedrion):
1. Name:
The Sanhedrin was, at and before the time of Christ, the name for the highest Jewish tribunal, of 71 members, in Jerusalem, and also for the lower tribunals, of 23 members, of which Jerusalem had two (Tosephta' Chaghighah] 11 9; Sanhedrin 1 6; 11 2). It is derived from sun, "together," and hedra, "seat." In Greek and Roman literature the senates of Sparta, Carthage, and even Rome, are so called (compare Pausan. iii.11, 2; Polyb. iii.22; Dion Cassius xl.49). In Josephus we meet with the word for the first time in connection with the governor Gabinius (57-55 BC), who divided the whole of Palestine into 5 sunedria (Ant., XIV, v, 4), or sunodoi (B J, I, viii, 5); and with the term sunedrion for the high council in Jerusalem first in Ant, XIV, ix, 3-5, in connection with Herod, who, when a youth, had to appear before the sunedrion at Jerusalem to answer for his doings in Galilee. But before that date the word appears in the Septuagint version of Proverbs (circa 130 BC), especially in 22:10; 31:23, as an equivalent for the Mishnaic beth-din = "judgment chamber."
In the New Testament the word sometimes, especially when used in the plural (; ; compare Sanhedrin 1 5), means simply "court of justice," i.e. any judicatory (). But in most cases it is used to designate the supreme Jewish Court of Justice in Jerusalem, in which the process against our Lord was carried on, and before which the apostles (especially Peter and John, Stephen, and Paul) had to justify themselves (; ; ; ; ; ; ; ). Sometimes presbuterion (; ) and gerousia () are substituted for sunedrion.
See SENATE.
In the Jewish tradition-literature the term "Sanhedrin" alternates with kenishta', "meeting-place" (Meghillath Ta'-anith 10, compiled in the 1st century AD), and beth-din, "court of justice" (Sanhedrin 11 2,4). As, according to Jewish tradition, there were two kinds of sunedria, namely, the supreme sunedrion in Jerusalem of 71 members, and lesser sunedria of 23 members, which were appointed by the supreme one, we find often the term canhedhrin gedholah, "the great Sanhedrin," or beth-din ha-gadhol, "the great court of justice" (Middoth 5 4; Sanhedrin 1 6), or canhedhrin gedholah ha-yoshebheth be-lishekhath hagazith, "the great Sanhedrin which sits in the hall of hewn stone."
2. Origin and History:
There is lack of positive historical information as to the origin of the Sanhedrin. According to Jewish tradition (compare Sanhedrin 16) it was constituted by Moses () and was reorganized by Ezra immediately after the return from exile (compare the Targum to Song of Songs 6:1). But there is no historical evidence to show that previous to the Greek period there existed an organized aristocratic governing tribunal among the Jews. Its beginning is to be placed at the period in which Asia was convulsed by Alexander the Great and his successors.
The Hellenistic kings conceded a great amount of internal freedom to municipal communities, and Palestine was then practically under home rule, and was governed by an aristocratic council of Elders (1 Macc 12:6; 2 Macc 1:10; 4:44; 11:27; 3 Macc 1:8; compare Josephus, Ant, XII, iii, 4; XIII, v, 8; Meghillath Ta`anith 10), the head of which was the hereditary high priest. The court was called Gerousia, which in Greek always signifies an aristocratic body (see Westermann in Pauly's RE, III, 49). Subsequently this developed into the Sanhedrin.
During the Roman period (except for about 10 years at the time of Gabinius, who applied to Judea the Roman system of government; compare Marquardt, Romische Staatsverwaltung, I, 501), the Sanhedrin's influence was most powerful, the internal government of the country being practically in its hands (Ant., XX, x), and it was religiously recognized even among the Diaspora (compare ; ; ). According to Schurer (HJP, div II, volume 1, 171; GJV4, 236) the civil authority of the Sanhedrin, from the time of Archelaus, Herod the Great's son, was probably restricted to Judea proper, and for that reason, he thinks, it had no judicial authority over our Lord so long as He remained in Galilee (but see G.A. Smith, Jerusalem, I, 416).
The Sanhedrin was abolished after the destruction of Jerusalem (70 AD). The beth-din (court of judgment) in Jabneh (68-80), in Usah (80-116), in Shafran (140-63), in Sepphoris (163-93), in Tiberias (193-220), though regarded in the Talmud (compare Ro'sh ha-shanah 31a) as having been the direct continuation of the Sanhedrin, had an essentially different character; it was merely an assembly of scribes, whose decisions had only a theoretical importance (compare Sotah 9 11).
3. Constitution:
The Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem was formed (,,; ; ; ; ; ) of high priests (i.e. the acting high priest, those who had been high priests, and members of the privileged families from which the high priests were taken), elders (tribal and family heads of the people and priesthood), and scribes (i.e. legal assessors), Pharisees and Sadducees alike (compare ff; 5:17,34; 23:6). In ; , Joseph of Arimathea is called bouleutes, "councillor," i.e. member of the Sanhedrin.
According to Josephus and the New Testament, the acting high priest was as such always head and president (,; ; ; ; ; Ant, IV, viii, 17; XX, x). Caiaphas is president at the trial of our Lord, and at Paul's trial Ananias is president. On the other hand, according to the Talmud (especially Haghighah 2 2), the Sanhedrin is represented as a juridical tribunal of scribes, in which one scribe acted as nasi', "prince," i.e. president, and another as 'abh-beth-din, father of the judgment-chamber, i.e. vice-president. So far, it has not been found possible to reconcile these conflicting descriptions (see "Literature," below).
Sanhedrin 4 3 mentions the cophere-ha-dayanim, "notaries," one of whom registered the reasons for acquittal, and the other the reasons for condemnation. In the New Testament we read of huperetai, "constables" () and of the "servants of the high priest" (; ; ), whom Josephus describes as "enlisted from the rudest and most restless characters" (Ant., XX, viii, 8; ix, 2). Josephus speaks of the "public whip," Matthew mentions "tormentors" (18:34), Luke speaks of "spies" (20:20).
The whole history of post-exilic Judaism circles round the high priests, and the priestly aristocracy always played the leading part in the Sanhedrin (compare Sanhedrin 4 2). But the more the Pharisees grew in importance, the more were they represented in the Sanhedrin. In the time of Salome they were so powerful that "the queen ruled only in name, but the Pharisees in reality" (Ant., XIII, xvi, 2). So in the time of Christ, the Sanhedrin was formally led by the Sadducean high priests, but practically ruled by the Pharisees (Ant., XVIII, i, 4).
4. Jurisdiction:
In the time of Christ the Great Sanhedrin at Jerusalem enjoyed a very high measure of independence. It exercised not only civil jurisdiction, according to Jewish law, but also, in some degree, criminal. It had administrative authority and could order arrests by its own officers of justice (; ; ; ; compare Sanhedrin 1 5). It was empowered to judge cases which did not involve capital punishment, which latter required the confirmation of the Roman procurator (; compare the Jerusalem Sanhedrin 1 1; 7 2 (p. 24); Josephus, Ant, XX, ix, 1). But, as a rule, the procurator arranged his judgment in accordance with the demands of the Sanhedrin.
For one offense the Sanhedrin could put to death, on their own authority, even a Roman citizen, namely, in the case of a Gentile passing the fence which divided the inner court of the Temple from that of the Gentiles (BJ, VI, ii, 4; Middoth 11 3; compare ). The only case of capital punishment in connection with the Sanhedrin in the New Testament is that of our Lord. The stoning of Stephen () was probably the illegal act of an enraged multitude.
5. Place and Time of Meeting:
The Talmudic tradition names "the hall of hewn stone," which, according to Middoth 5 4, was on the south side of the great court, as the seat of the Great Sanhedrin (Pe'-ah 2 6; `Edhuyoth 7 4, et al.). But the last sittings of the Sanhedrin were held in the city outside the Temple area (Sanhedrin 41a; Shabbath 15a; Ro'sh ha-shanah 31a; Abhodhah zarah 8c). Josephus also mentions the place where the bouleutai, "the councilors," met as the boule, outside the Temple (BJ, V, iv, 2), and most probably he refers to these last sittings.
According to the Tosephta' Sanhedrin 7 1, the Sanhedrin held its sittings from the time of the offering of the daily morning sacrifice till that of the evening sacrifice. There were no sittings on Sabbaths or feast days.
6. Procedure:
The members of the Sanhedrin were arranged in a semicircle, so that they could see each other (Sanhedrin 4 3; Tosephta' 8 1). The two notaries stood before them, whose duty it was to record the votes (see 3, above). The prisoner had to appear in humble attitude and dressed it, mourning (Ant., XIV, ix, 4). A sentence of capital punishment could not be passed on the day of the trial. The decision of the judges had to be examined on the following day (Sanhedrin 4 1), except in the case of a person who misled the people, who could be tried and condemned the same day or in the night (Tosephta' Sanhedrin 10). Because of this, cases which involved capital punishment were not tried on a Friday or on any day before a feast. A herald preceded the condemned one as he was led to the place of execution, and cried out: "N. the son of N. has been found guilty of death, etc. If anyone knows anything to clear him, let him come forward and declare it" (Sanhedrin 6 1). Near the place of execution the condemned man was asked to confess his guilt in order that he might partake in the world to come (ibid.; compare ).
LITERATURE.
Our knowledge about the Sanhedrin is based on three sources: the New Testament, Josephus, and the Jewish tradition-literature (especially Mishna, Sanhedrin and Makkoth, best edition, Strack, with German translation, Schriften des Institutum Judaicum in Berlin, N. 38, Leipzig, 1910).
See the article, TALMUD.
Consult the following histories of the Jewish people: Ewald, Herzfeld, Gratz, but especially Schurer's excellent HJP, much more fully in GJV4; also G. A. Smith, Jerusalem. Special treatises on Sanhedrin: D. Hoffmann, Der oberste Gerichtsh of in der Stadt des Heiligtums, Berlin, 1878, where the author tries to defend the Jewish traditional view as to the antiquity of the Sanhedrin; J. Reifmann, Sanhedrin (in Hebrews), Berditschew, 1888; A. Kuenen, On the Composition of the Sanhedrin, in Dutch, translated into German by Budde, Gesammelte Abhandlungen, etc., 49-81, Freiburg, 1894; Jelski, Die innere Einrichtung des grossen Synedrions zu Jerusalem, Breslau, 1894, who tries to reconcile the Talmudical statements about the composition of the Sanhedrin with those of Josephus and the New Testament (especially in connection with the question of president) by showing that in the Mishna (except Chaghighah 11 2) nasi' always stands for the political president, the high priest, and 'abh-beth-din for the scribal head of the Sanhedrin, and not for the vice-president; A. Buchler, Das Synedrium in Jerusalem und das grosse Beth-din in der Quaderkammer des jerusalemischen Tempels, Vienna, 1902, a very interesting but not convincing work, where the author, in order to reconcile the two different sets of sources, tries to prove that the great Sanhedrin of the Talmud is not identical with the Sanhedrin of Josephus and the New Testament, but that there were two Sanhedrins in Jerusalem, the one of the New Testament and Josephus being a political one, the other a religious one. He also thinks that Christ was seized, not by the Sanhedrin, but by the temple authorities.
See also W. Bacher's article in HDB (excellent for sifting the Talmudic sources); Dr. Lauterbach's article in the Jewish Encyclopedia (accepts fully Biichler's view); H. Strack's article in Sch-Herz (concise and exact).
Paul Levertoff
Sansannah
san-san'-a (cancannah; [Sansanna], or Sethennak): One of the uttermost cities in the Negeb of Judah (), identical with Hazar-susah (), one of the cities of Simeon, and almost certainly the same as Hazar-susim (). It cannot be said to have been identified with any certainty, though Simsim, "a good-sized village with well and pool, surrounded by gardens and having a grove of olives to the north," has been suggested (PEF, III, 260, Sh XX).
Saph
saf (caph; Codex Vaticanus Saph; Codex Alexandrinus Sephe): A Philistine, one of the four champions of the race of Rapha ("giant") who was slain by Sibbecai, one of David's heroes (; ). It is supposed by some that he was the son of the giant Goliath, but this is not proved. In , the same person is called "Sippai."
Saphat
sa'-fat:
(1) A and Fritzsche, Saphat; omitted in Codex Vaticanus (and Swete); Babylonian margin Asaph: The eponym of a family which returned with Zerubbabel (1 Esdras 5:9) = "Shephatiah" in ; .
(2) Codex Alexandrinus Saphat; Codex Vaticanus, Swete, and Fritzsche, Saphag; the King James Version Sabat: One of the families of "the sons of the servants of Solomon" who returned with Zerubbabel (1 Esdras 5:34); wanting in the parallel ; .
Saphatias
saf-a-ti'-as (Saphatias, Codex Vaticanus Sophotias; omitted in Codex Alexandrinus): Name of a family of returning exiles (1 Esdras 8:34) = "Shephatiah" in . If Saphatias (1 Esdras 8:34) = Saphat (1 Esdras 5:9), as would appear, then part of the family went up with Zerubbabel and part with Ezra.
Sapheth
sa'-feth: the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and American) SAPHUTHI (which see).
Saphir
sa'-fer (shaphir).
See SHAPHIR.
Saphuthi
saf'-u-thi, sa-fu'-thi (Codex Alexandrinus and Fritzsche, Saphuthi, Codex Vaticanus (and Swete), Saphuei; the King James Version Sapheth): Name of one of the families of "the sons of the servants of Solomon" (1 Esdras 5:33) = "Shephatiah" in ; .
Sapphira
sa-fi'-ra (shappira'; Aramaic for either "beautiful" or "sapphire"; Sappheira): Wife of Ananias ().
See ANANIAS, (1).
Sapphire
saf'-ir.
See STONES, PRECIOUS.
Sarabias
sar-a-bi'-as (Sarabias) : One of the Levites who taught and expounded the Law for Ezra (1 Esdras 9:48) = "Sherebiah" in , probably identical with the "Asebebias" in 1 Esdras 8:47 ().
Sarah; Sarai
sa'-ra, sa'-ri:
(1) In the woman who up to that time has been known as Sarai (Saray; Sara) receives by divine command the name Sarah (Sarah; Sarra). (This last form in Greek preserves the ancient doubling of the r, lost in the Hebrew and the English forms.)
The former name appears to be derived from the same root as Israel, if, indeed, is intended as an etymology of Israel. "She that strives," a contentious person, is a name that might be given to a child at birth (compare ,, of Jacob), or later when the child's character developed; in and 21:10 a contentious character appears. Yet comparison with the history of her husband's name (see ABRAHAM) warns us not to operate solely upon the basis of the Hebrew language. Sarai was the name this woman brought with her from Mesopotamia. On the other hand there can be little doubt that the name Sarah, which she received when her son was promised, means "princess," for it is the feminine form of the extremely common title sar, used by the Semites to designate a ruler of greater or lesser rank. In the verse following the one where this name is conferred, it is declared of Sarah that "kings of peoples shall be of her" ().
We are introduced to Sarai in . She is here mentioned as the wife that Abraham "took," while still in Ur of the Chaldees, that is, while among his kindred. It is immediately added that "Sarai was barren; she had no child." By this simple remark in the overture of his narrative, the writer sounds the motif that is to be developed in all the sequel. When the migration to Haran occurs, Sarai is named along with Abram and Lot as accompanying Terah. It has been held that the author (or authors) of Genesis 11 knew nothing of the relationship announced in 20:12. But there can be no proof of such ignorance, even on the assumption of diversity of authorship in the two passages.
Sarai's career as described in Genesis 11 was not dependent on her being the daughter of Terah. Terah had other descendants who did not accompany him. Her movements were determined by her being Abram's wife. It appears, however, that she was a daughter of Terah by a different mother from the mother of Abram. The language of 20:12 would indeed admit of her being Abram's niece, but the fact that there was but 10 years' difference between his age and hers () renders this hypothesis less probable. Marriage with half-sisters seems to have been not uncommon in antiquity (even in the Old Testament compare ).
This double relationship suggested to Abraham the expedient that he twice used when he lacked faith in God to protect his life and in cowardice sought his own safety at the price of his wife's honor. The first of these occasions was in the earlier period of their wanderings (Genesis 12). From Canaan they went down into Egypt. Sarai, though above 60 years of age according to the chronology of the sacred historian, made the impression on the Egyptians by her beauty that Abraham had anticipated, and the result was her transfer to the royal palace. But this was in direct contravention of the purpose of God for His own kingdom. The earthly majesty of Pharaoh had to bow before the divine majesty, which plagued him and secured the stranger's exodus, thus foreshadowing those later plagues and that later exodus when Abraham's and Sarah's seed "spoiled the Egyptians."
We meet Sarah next in the narrative of the birth of Ishmael and of Isaac. Though 14 years separated the two births, they are closely associated in the story because of their logical continuity. Sarah's barrenness persisted. She was now far past middle life, even on a patriarchal scale of longevity, and there appeared no hope of her ever bearing that child who should inherit the promise of God. She therefore adopts the expedient of being "builded by" her personal slave, Hagar the Egyptian (see margin). That is, according to contemporary law and custom as witnessed by the Code of Hammurabi (see ABRAHAM, iv, 2), a son born of this woman would be the freeborn son and heir of Abraham and Sarah.
Such was in fact the position of Ishmael later. But the insolence of the maid aroused the vindictive jealousy of the mistress and led to a painful scene of unjustified expulsion. Hagar, however, returned at God's behest, humbled herself before Sarah, and bore Ishmael in his own father's house. Here he remained the sole and rightful heir, until the miracle of Isaac's birth disappointed all human expectations and resulted in the ultimate expulsion of Hagar and her son.
The change of name from Sarai to Sarah when Isaac was promised has already been noted. Sarah's laughter of incredulity when she hears the promise is of course associated with the origin of the name of Isaac, but it serves also to emphasize the miraculous character of his birth, coming as it does after his parents are both so "well stricken in age" as to make parenthood seem an absurdity.
Before the birth of this child of promise, however, Sarah is again exposed, through the cowardice of her husband, to dishonor and ruin. Abimelech, king of Gerar, desiring to be allied by marriage with a man of Abraham's power, sends for Sarah, whom he knows only as Abraham's sister, and for the second time she takes her place in the harem of a prince. But the divine promise is not to be thwarted, even by persistent human weakness and sin. In a dream God reveals to Abimelech the true state of the case, and Sarah is restored to her husband with an indemnity. Thereupon the long-delayed son is born, the jealous mother secures the expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael, and her career comes to a close at the age of 127, at Hebroni long time her home. The grief and devotion of Abraham are broadly displayed in Genesis 23, in which he seeks and obtains a burying-place for his wife. She is thus the first to be interred in that cave of the field of Machpelah, which was to be the common resting-place of the fathers and mothers of the future Israel.
The character of Sarah is of mingled light and shade. On the one hand we have seen that lapse from faith which resulted in the birth of Ishmael, and that lack of self-control and charity which resulted in a quarrel with Abraham, an act of injustice to Hagar, and the disinheriting of Ishmael. Yet on the other hand we see in Sarah, as the New Testament writers point out (; ), one who through a long life of companionship with Abraham shared his hope in God, his faith in the promises, and his power to become God's agent for achieving what was humanly impossible. In fact, to Sarah is ascribed a sort of spiritual maternity, correlative with Abraham's position as "father of the faithful"; for all women are declared to be the (spiritual) daughters of Sarah, who like her are adorned in "the hidden man of the heart," and who are "doers of good" and "fearers of no terror" (1 Peter loc. cit., literally rendered). That in spite of her outbreak about Hagar and Ishmael she was in general "in subjection to her husband" and of "a meek and quiet spirit," appears from her husband's genuine grief at her decease, and still more clearly from her son's prolonged mourning for her (; compare , with ). And He who maketh even the wrath of man to praise Him used even Sarah's jealous anger to accomplish His purpose that "the son of the freewoman," Isaac, "born through promise," should alone inherit that promise ().
Apart from the three New Testament passages already cited, Sarah is alluded to only in ("Sarah that bare you," as the mother of the nation), in ("the deadness of Sarah's womb"), and in , where God's promise in is quoted. Yet her existence and her history are of course presupposed wherever allusion is made to the stories of Abraham and of Isaac.
To many modern critics Sarah supplies, by her name, a welcome argument in support of the mythical view of Abraham. She has been held to be the local numen to whom the cave near Hebron was sacred; or the deity whose consort was worshipped in Arabia under the title Dusares, i.e. Husband-of-Sarah; or, the female associate of Sin the moon-god, worshipped at Haran. On these views the student will do well to consult Baethgen, Beitrage, 94, 157, and, for the most recent point of view, Gressmann's article, "Sage und Geschichte in den Patriarchenerzahlungen," ZATW, 1910, and Eerdmans, Alttestamentliche Studien, II, 13.
(2) The daughter of Raguel, and wife of Tobias (Tobit 3:7,17, etc.).
See TOBIT, BOOK OF.
J. Oscar Boyd
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James Orr (1915). Public domain. Text from the CrossWire Bible Society.