PELIAS
PELIAS ( n s h l a c [B], n a i h a l a c [A]), AV I Esd.
934=Ezra 1035, BEDEIAH.
PELICAN (nvz ; ~ E A E K A N . OPNEON, KAT&-
PAKTHC, X A M A I A ~ W N [or K O ~ ?--transposition
A ~ ; see
Zeph.]; unocrotaZus, but in Ps. prllrc-anus). One of
the unclean birds. Lev. 11 18 Dt. 1 4 1 7 . The relerence
in Is. 31 1 1 , however, seems due to thoughtlessness,
a t least if &i',ith means the ' pelican.' for this bird (like
the bittern) loves marshy ground. whereas Edoni (to
the fate of which Is. 34 is devoted) was to become
parched. On the other hand, the ' pelican' is well
placed in the ruins of Nineveh (Zeph. 2 1 4 ) , for there
are many reedy marshes near the Tigris. In Ps. 1026.
again, the reference to the pelican (if nNiJ means this
bird) indicates a conventionalised zoology ; for though
it may he true that the term i I i n (EV in Ps. ' wilder-
ness') does not convey the meaning of 'desert,' it
is certainly applied to relatively dry districts where the
pelican would not be at home. The rendering ' pelican,'
however, is by no means free from doubt.
It has been suggested by the supposed etymology of nNp,
kZ'<th, viz. Nip: ' t o vomit,' which accords with t h e pelican's
well-known habit of regurgitating its food: cp Talm. p ' i ~( =
nyy. One would certainly have expected, however, to find the
pelican indicated by more characteristic features in the O T
literature. Noticing t h a t in Ps. 1026 t h e kri'cith and the Ros
(i.c., 'owl ') are mentioned in parallel line?, the question arises
whether the former word may not be a mutilated form of
Badydth, and mean owl.' We find N;l& Badyd (Ass. &add),
in Tg. Onk. of Lev. 1117 for Djz, k8s, and it is not impossible
that two species of o w l (a great and a small?) may have been
combined by the psalmist as images of desolation.
The pelican's habit of 'storing great quantities of fish
in the capacious pouch under its lower mandible. and
then disgorging them to feed its young ' is well known ;
the fable of its feeding its young with its blood arose in
Egypt, and was attached originally to the vulture (see
Houghton, letter in Acad.. Apr. 5 , 1884. p. 243J).
There are, according to Tristram, two species of pelican
found o n the coasts of Syria-Pclicunus onocrofalus, or
the White Pelican, and P. crispus, the Dalmatian
Pelican, both birds of enormous size, about 6 ft. long,
and the spread of their wings reaching over IZ ft.
Tristram thinks that the allusion in Ps. 1026a is to
' the melancholy attitude of this bird as, after gorging
itself, it sits for hours or even days with its bill resting
on its breast' (NHP 251). T. K. C.-A. E. S.
PELONITE pn155). I. 1 c h . 1127 2710, a cor-
ruption fur PALTITE(9.v.)--i.e., man of RETH.PELET (9.u.).
2. I Ch. 11 36, a corruption fur GILONIYE-~.C., man of GILOH
(q.71.): see ELIAM, I , AHITHOPHEL (end).
PELUSIUM (I'D), Ezek. 30 15 AVmS EV S IN.
PEN. The earliest writing implement was probablythe
stylus (rpa@ic,' j-paC@[a]ioru, in late Writers CTYAOC),
a pointed bodkin of metal, bone, or ivory, used for
making incised or engraved letters on lead, clay. stone,
wood, or wax. Such was the pen of Isaiah (Is. 81:
aln, ypa$is, stylus). T h e same word occurs in Ex. 3 2 4
(ICV 'graving tool'; the implement with which the
molten calf was fashioned; F has +$is), and should
perhaps he read i n Is. 44r3. See PENCIL. The iron
pen (5Iis ~ y ypa@ciov
, ur?iqpoJu, stylus ferrem) is also
mentioked in Job 1924 Jer. 17 I . The calamus or
arundo, the hollow tubular stalk of grasses growing in
marshy lands, was the true ancient representative of
the modern pen. The use of such reed pens can be
traced to a remote antiquity among the civilised nations
of the E a s t 2 T o make and mend them, a penknife
(lo:? l p : Jer. 3623t) or 'scribes' razor' (see REARU)
Was required. A reed pen is probably intended in Ps.
452 (oy, K ~ X U ~ O ScnZamus)
, and in Jer. 8 8 ( D V ; uxoivos;
sfvZz~s). and in 3 Jn. 13 ( K d X a p o s ) . The earliest specific
allusion to the quill pen is in the Ecvmofogies of lsidore
1 yOa&% was also used for a fine brush (#enkillus, pencil)
used i n drawing.
2 Hollow joints of bamboo were similarly employed.
3645
PENNY
of Seville, who died 636 A.D. ('instrumenta scribz.
. .
calamus et penna . sed calamus arhoris est, penna
avis, cujus acumen dividitur in duo'). That, however,
does not prove that the quill pen was not in use earlier.
A bronze pen. n i b k d like a modern steel pen, found
a t Ponipeii. is now preserved in the Museum at Pu'aples.
On the 'pen of the writer' (Judg. 5 14, 1 9 D B?v R V 'marshal's
staff') see ScniBE, 5.
PENALTY (Pr. 1 9 1 9 RV). See T RIBUTE, 7 ; cp
F INE.
PENCIL (liPred;
@ 6 incomplete
, and corrupt ; Is.
4413t RV), the instrument with which the wood-carver
made his first rough sketch of the image he \vas to pro-
duce. Kirnhi and others think of a red-coloured thread
(hence AV's ' l i n e ' ) ; RV"'S records the sense ' r e d
ochre ' ; RV gives ' pencil ' (cp Aq. ?rapaypurgis-i.e.,
stilus) ; Vg. rumina- Le., ' plane.' All plausible mean-
ings, if justifiable.
119,however. seems to be corrupt : the root would mean ' t o
weave together.' We should expect D?? (see P EN ). Haupt,
however, would render 'compasses,' and connect Ass. sirdu
'yoke'(see SBOT,fsaiah, Heb. 137).
PENDANTS (niDW1, Judg. 8 26 RV, AV collars ' ;
ni5tlJ Is. 3 19 RV, AV 'chains'). See R I N G 2.,
PENIEL ( h B ) ,Gen. 3230[31], in v. 31 [p]P ENUEL.
PENINNAH (3239, Q 71; @"ANA [BAL]),
wife of Elkanah ( I S.1 z).' T h e name is apparently the
singnlar of peninirn, a word of doubtful signification,
in AV 'rubies' (see R UBY). As a woman's name it
probably alludes to the complexion ; cp Lam. 47.
W. R. S .
PENKNIFE (TDb3 Tun: TO f y p o ~TOY rpaM-
MATEWC ; scalpellurn scribe), Jer. 3623t. See PEN.
PENNY. Under this head we treat of the various
coins of which the (;reek namesaretranslated by ' penny,'
'farthing,'and 'mite' respectively, reservingthe 'drachm'
and * stater' for separate discussion (see S TATER).
P nny is used in both AV and RV to represent
. . (denarz'us),
Bqu%ptov . the silver coin issue& by the Roman
1. ,Denarius., Imperial mint; it was current in all parts
of the Empire, and in terms of it and its
sixteenth part, the as,all public accounts were presented.
Its normal weight during the time of Christ and until
the reign of Nero was of the Roman pound--i.e.,
60 grains troy.' Its nominal value was & of the
Imperial gold coin, or aureus; of lower denomina-
tions, which were issued in bronze or copper, it con-
tained 4 sertertii, or 16 asses. As an almost invariable
rule it bore on one side (the obverse) the head of the
Emperor or some member of the Imperial family, with
titles-the ' image and superscription ' mentioned in
Mt. 2220 Mk. 1216 Lk. 2024. On the rezwse is a
representation (usually historical or mythological) with
an inscription either alluding to the object represented,
or amplifying the titles of the person who figures on the
obverse.
The denarius of Tiheriun reproduced in next col. was issued
between 16 and 37 A.D., and therefore current about the time of
Chrkt. Around the laureate head of the Emperor runs t h e
. .
inscription T I . CAESAR D l V l . AVG . F AVGVSTVS (' Tiherius
Caesar Augustus,sonofthedeified Augustus'). On thereverse t h e
inscription I V N T I F(L.X) >iAx(imus)complete.; the titles of Tiberius
whilbt the seated figure, w i t h her rirht hand resting on a sceptre:
her left holding a flower, is the Empress Livia.
This then is the kind of coin in which the tribute was
paid. A standard silver coin of the same normal weight
(60grs. troy) would at the present time be equivalent
to 81d. The legal value of the denarius, however, is
better estimated by its relation to the aureus. That
coin weighed normally 126.3 grs. troy, and the denarius
1 Rateson-Wrirht ( W a s Zsraelewer in E&t 1 231) connects
P e n i n n a h with Jephunneh, Elkanah heing a son of Jeroham.
2 The standard weight of t h e Rritish shilling is 87.27272
grains, that of the sixpence 43.63636.
3646
 PENNY
was therefore legally equivalent to & of the same amount
of gold, which, a t the present rate of'L3 : 17 : 10% for
the ounce troy, works out at g.83d. The best idea of
the actual purchasing poaer of the denarius is gained
from its employment as a fair day's wage for the agri-
cultural labourer (Mt. 2O2-14), from the payment of two
denarii by the good Samaritan, and from the fact that
the Roman legionary's pay in those times was 225
Denarius of Tiberius.
+
denarii a year, or denarius a day. Hence it is clear
that the American K V translation 'shilling,' if not
entirely satisfactory, is nearer the mark than the English
' penny.'
Farthing is the rendering adopted for two Greek
words. the Ko6odvrns.
' Kudranfes (sbv Puyarov Ko6odvrnv.
' t h i last farthing,' Mi.-526 ; h e k b $60
2* 'Farthing'' 8 Purtv K O ~ U ~ V ~' two S . mites. which
make a farthing,' Mk. l242)'and ;he duudptov, ursariun
(6Lo uzpouOia duuapiou awheirar, two sparrows sold
for a farthing,' Mt. 1029, cp Lk. 126). Both names are
of Latin origin, assdrius being a by-form of as, and p a d -
runs representing the fourth part of the as in the Roman
divisional system. Assarion must be the name of a pro-
vincial coin which corresponds in some way to the Roman
as. In the Hellenistic system the unit was the silver
drachm (for ordinary purposes ranking as equivalent to
the denarius, but by the Romans for official purposes
tariffed at 2 denarius or 12 asses). This drachm con-
tained 6 dpoXol or 48 XaXKoi. Now the evidence of
the coins of Chios (see Imhoof-Blumer, Griechische
Miinzeen, 660) shows that, in that island at least, the
obol was equivalent to z assaria, and the drachm to
12 assaria. Since assarion thus corresponds to as, it
+
follows that the XakKo6s, chalkous (or of the obol of
2 assaria) corresponds to the quadrans (or f as). Kud-
rantes may therefore be regarded as an alternative name
for this chaikuus, used especially where it was desirable
to be understood by non-Hellenistic readers. Hence its
occurrence in the explanatory clause in Mk. 1 2 4 2 ; its
use by Mt. 526, where Lk. 1259 has hem6v (see § z), has
been explained by Mt.'s familiarity with the Roman
system of accounting. As regards the quadrans itself,
the Roman coin of that name ceased to he issued early
in the first century B . C . , and was revived for a short
period under the Empire (from Nero to Trajan). There
is no good evidence of its existence in the Roman currency
during the time with which we are immediately con-
cerned, nor is there any probability that a provincial
coin was a t any time known in common speech by
the name of kodrantes. The bearing of this point on
the text need not be discussed here.
The word Xenrbv, Zeptun, already mentioned, is fittingly
translated mite (Mk. 1242 Lk212 and 1259). As to
3. 'lMite.,this coin there is much evidence confirming
the equation of two lepta to one kodrantes
given in the first passage, although most of that evidence
seems to be derived from the same source. In Hebrew
literature, however, we find the smallest Jewish coin,
plyzitah, equated with Q Roman ar. W e need not
hesitate to identify lepton and pJrzifah. From this,
since we have identified chalkons and quadrans, it
would seem to follow that the lepton was half the
chalkons. Nevertheless, numismatists haye serious
difficulty in finding, among the small coins of Judza,
separate denominations for chalkous and lepton. The
minute pieces of the HasmonEan and Idumaean rulers,
which it has been proposed to regard as a different
3647
PENNY
denomination from the larger, seem to owe their small
size and low weight to carelessness on the part of the
moneyers, or to long circulation. On the other hand,
the following consideration will show that chalkous and
lepton are probably the same, and that the apparent
discrepancy is due to different systems of valuation.
In addition to the system (A), in which the drachm
was equivalent to 12 assaria-asses, there was in
4. Chalkous Judrea, at least during the second century,
and lepton. another system (B). According to it
(see Kennedy, 429) the drachm was
divided into 6 obols (mR'dth) and 24 assaria (issRrim).
To the same system presumably belonged the lepton-
p€r&!ah. which would bear the same relation to the
assarion of system B as the chalkous-kodrantes did to
the assarion of the system A.
There is much probability in the view advocated by Ken;
nedy that we have in this double system a case of 'tariff
and 'current' values. System A represents t h e values adopted
for accounting, B those according to which coin5 panbed in
ordinary transactions. The three systems with which we have
to reckon may thus be stated in tabular form, where in each
column r is placed opposite the unit in terms of which the other
denominations in that column are calculated.
__
i zpz
Provincial.
Denomination.
System A.! System B.
I- -I I
Denarius I
Apaxpi? dradme [il
Festertius
opokir, obolos
a
If1 B
fa ..
PASomiprov, assarion [fa] h
Quadrans dx
I XahKOCr-he7&",
chalkous-lcjton
I
[E$]
I.
dE
On system A, the assarion, as ,IE of the denarius estimated at
9.83d.. is to be rated at ad., and t h e K O ~ ~ L V Wkodrantes
S, kah-
K O & chalkous) at <\d. On system B the assarion would he worth
&d.: and the ~ahroSc-hrrrrd.v, chalkous-lepton jhd. It is probably
the lower values t h a t we must assign to t h e words ( I U U L ~ P L O Y
(assarion) and A m & (lepton) wherever they are used in the
N'r, since there is nothing to show that they are not used in a
popular sense.
If it is desirable not to use the actual Greek names,
practiral purposes are best served by the use of ' penny'
for assarion, 'farthing' for kodrantes, and 'mite' for
lepton.
The identification of these minor denominations with
extant pieces is hampered by two facts; very few
ancient coins bear their names ; and bronze and copper,
being token currency, were not issued according to
accurate weight-standards. Size, in fact, rather than
weight, seems to have been the distinctive mark of
denomination. Among Jewish coins we have pieces of
Herod I. which bear the letter X (Madden, p. III), and
of Agrippa 11. with the inscription XAAKOTZ (zb. p.
146 ; the same legend occurs on other small coins issued
perhaps from Antioch). The coin of Herod is probably
Coin issued (by Pontius Pilate) in 29-30 A.D.
like the latter, the XahKO%-h€7rTbV,chalkous-&fun. Of
coins actually issued during the time of Christ, the small
pieces of the Procurators (from & t o of an inch in
diameter, and weighing from 40 to 23 grs. troy), may
be regarded as of the same denomination, since they
most nearly approach the two coins of Herod I. and
Agrippa 11.
As an instance, we give the accompanying coin, which was
issued in the 16th year(L1S)of the Emperor Tiherius (TIB€PIOY
KAICAPOC), and therefore by Pontius Pilate 111 the year 29-30
A.D. The types are a sacrificial ladle (simpulum) and three ears
3648
 PENTECOST
of corn hound together; on the reverse is the name of Julia
(Livia), mother of the Emperor-IOYAIA KAICAPOC.
The assaria may have been coins like the larger
pieces of Herod I. (Madden, 107; two specimens in the
Assaria. British hluseum weigh 107.9 and 97 grs.
respectively). More probably, however,
these were pieces of threeXaXKoi, chaikoi (Madden, 108),
and the commonest assaria were coins of the Syrian
Antioch. In addition to its coins with Greek inscriptions
meant chiefly for local use, this mint issued a series with
Latin inscriptions, and with the letters S. C. ( L e . , Senatus
consuZtu). These coins, resembling the issues of the
Roman mint, were meant for more than local circulation.
Under Augustus and Tiberius we find two denomina-
tions ; the larger weigh from over 300 to 225 grs., and
measure I $ to I & inch ; the smaller, from 150 to 1 1 4
grs.. measure I to $o inch. The two denominations
are generally supposed to be the sestertius and the as. In
the smaller, therefore, we probably see the assnriun Of
the NT.
. L s u i o n of the year 3 , A.IL
The assarion here illustrated was struck in the year 37 A.D.
O n the obverse, it hears a laureate head of the emperor with the
titles TI(berius) CAESAR AVG(ustus) TK(ihuniciQ) POT(es-
tate) XXXIII ; on the reverse the letters S ‘ C within a wreath.
Lifernture.--See especially F. W. Madden, Coins of theJews
(1881); A. R. S. Kennedy’s art. ‘Money’ in Hastings’ D B 3
(1900), 4178 G . F. H.
PENTATEUCH. See HEXATECCH.
PENTECOST. In J and E (Ex. 34 18-26, cp 23 IO-
17) the feast of weeks is the second of the three festivals
to be celebrated by the attendance of all
*’ In and E’ males at the sanctuary. The expres-
sions in the two forms of the law are not quite the same.
Ex. 34 2 2 runs ‘thou shalt observe the feast of weeks
( n i y x j m),[the feast] of the first-fruits of the wheat-harvest
I T
(O’P)? 1’57 ’173$)’ ; Ex. 23 16, on the other hand, has ‘the feast
of harvest; the first-fruits of thy labours which thou sowest in
the field (?’gyp ’7753 l’:? JC).’
Substantially, both come to the same thing : Ex. 3422
is merely expressed more precisely. It is not the feast
of corn-harvest as a whole that is spoken of, but the
festival a t its conclusion, the wheat-harvest being the last
to be reaped.
‘The time of celebration is thus clearly and distinctly
fixed for the end of harvest. ’The first-fruits of the new
harvest (pm $121)are now presented-more precisely,
the first-fruits of the wheat-harvest, for the first-fruits of
the barley-harvest are presented at the beginning of
harvest, a t the feast of unleavened bread. A more
exact, yet equally relative determination of the date
seems to lie in the plainly ancient name Sribii’dth ; at
least it is so taken in Dt. 169, where the feast of weeks
is brought into a close time connection with the feast a t
the beginning of harvest. The duration of the corn-
harvest (it is only the corn-harvest that is to be taken
into account) is computed a t seven weeks-an estimate
which still answers fairly well to the climatic conditions
of Pxlestine. These seven weeks of the harvest are the
great annual season of gladness, the weeks of joy, the
weeks ~ a 7 &ox$v.
’ The ‘joy of harvest ’ is proverbial
among the ancient Hebrews (cp Is. 93[2]) ; the period
opens and closes with the two feasts we have named.
1 The question of the literary relationship of the two passages
is discussed elsewhere (PASSOVER, 8 I : cp E XODUS ii., Sg 3,,4),
but may he disregarded here, the answer to it having no bearing
on the hi5tory of the development of the Pentecost feast.
lli 3649
PENTECOST
The old law contains no further detailed enactment of
any kind regarding this feast. the manner of its celebra-
tion, the sacrifices to be offered, or the like. Indeed,
this is no case where definite offerings and legally fixed
dues are to be rendered ; it is a question of voluntary
presentation of first-fruits, as it still stands enacted in
Ut. (1610) : ‘Thou shalt keep the feast of weeks unto
Yahwe thy God with a tribute of a freewill offering of
thine hand which thou shalt give according as Yahwe
thy God hath blessed thee. ’
The meaning of the gifts and of the feast as a whole
is easily recognised when we hear in Hosea ( 9 4 ) , that in
exile the people shall have nought to eat but mourners’
bread, since none of it shall have come up into the house
of Yah\v&. By this gift made to God, a gift which in turn
is consumed by men in the joyous sacrificial meal, the
whole is made holy (see T AXATION ). That a t the same
time the gift has the character of a thank-offering is also
manifest. The next step is easy : such an offering came
to be regarded as a tribute of homage in which the deity
is recognised as the ‘lord,’ the Baal of the land, and
i
the bestower of the g fts of the soil. At how early a date
this last conception c me to be the leading and normative
one we do not know. It finds explicit expression first
in the passage of Dt. already quoted, w-here the offering
to be offered at the feast is determined by the wealth of
the offerer, in other words by the produce of his fields.
The law of Dt., as already seen, adds nothing to the
ancient custom ; all that it does is to lay greater stress
2. In D. on the character of the offering as a divine
tribute which may be rightly claimed by the
deity as due to him out of that which he has bestowed
on his human vassal. This appears also in the precept
of Dt. 261 f: (see below). In spite of the general
tendency of Dt. to assign a historical origin to the
feasts, we do not find in it in the present case any such
definite reference to the Exodus as is found in that of
the passover (see PASSOVER, § 6). Even here it is only in
a quite general u-ay that reference is made to the exodus
when in Dt. 26 I there is prescribed a sort of confession
to he made at the bringing of the first-fruits ( =tithes; see
T AXATIONS ), in which amongst other things the offering
of the produce of the land is represented as a thanks-
giving for the bestowal of the land. After the offering
of the first-fruits at the autumn festival (see T ABER -
NACLES, FEAST O F ) had come to be so regarded, only
a very short step was needed in order to bring the
offering of the first-fruits at the harvest festival into
connection with the same thought.
More important, however, than the points just
mentioned are the changes which, though not indeed
intended and enjoined by Dt., inevitably arose in the
case of this feast as a consequence of the concentra-
tion of the worship a t a central sanctuary ; the fixing
of a definite day in the calendar, and the transformation
of the celebration from being a popular festival to being
an act of public worship. On these points see, further,
FEASTS, IO.
The third stage in the development of the three feasts
is marked by H in Lev. 2315-21. Here again we find
3. In
and the date of the feast of weeks still left
vague, just as it is in Dt. On the other
inElek. hand, the amount and kind of the festal
offering is more precisely determined in the law of H
than before. It is no longer left to the discretion of
the individual to bring as he chooses according to the
yield of his land-this tribute of first-fruits has already
become a fixed tithe to be paid at the sanctuary (see
TAXATION)-but it is now laid upon the entire comniun-
ity’ to bring a definite first-fruit offering ; two first-fruit
loaves (n’ymc E.)) of new meal, of two tenths of an
1 ‘Out of your dwellings’ (nJrniI@lDp) in Lev. 23 17 does not
mean, as has been supposed (so Graf and others), ‘out of each
several house,’ so that every householder or owner of land would
have had the duty of bringing this offering ; it means ‘out of
your land ’- Le., of home-grown flour (see Dillm. ad Zuc.).
3650
 PENTECOST
ephah, baked with leaven. With the loaves is performed
the ceremony of waving, whence the loaves are called
‘wave loaves.‘ They were to be leavened, for they
were to be taken from what was in common daily use.
In this we may safely conjecture a survival from ancient
custom : at the beginning of harvest in the feast of
unleavened bread the grain was offered raw, or roasted,
or in the form of quickly-baked unleavened cakes (see
PASSOVER) ; at the end of the harvest what was offered
was fully prepared bread. It must not be taken as
an argument against the antiquity of this religious
custom tbat it is not mentioned in D or J E ; J E has
no ritual prescriptions at all as to the bringing of these
offerings, and D has them only in the case of the
passover, not in that of the harvest festival or of the
autumn (ingathering) festival with its peculiar customs.
For the Pentecost offering H (Lev. 23 19) further orders
two yearling lambs’ as a sacrifice of peace offerings.
The bread and the flesh, after having been presented to
Yahwk, fall to the lot of the priests.
In the programme of Ezekiel, singularly enough,
the Pentecostal offering finds no mention; in 4521,
it has been introduced by a later hand and is absent
from 6.
The omission is perhaps connected with the fact that
Ezekiel divides the entire ecclesiastical year iuto two portions.
with two parallel series of feasts; thus no suitable place is kit
for Pentecost. I n any case, however, this proves that Ezekiel
does not regard the feast of Pentecost as of particular interest ;
and from this we can infer further that in his time it was the
least important of the great yearly festivals.
In P (Nu. 2826f. ) Pentecost still continues to be a
purely harvest feast. In agreement with the name
‘ feast of the first-fruits ’ is the specific ritual
4* In
prescription, the bringing of a meal offering
of new meal. T o this characteristic Pentecostal offering
P adds, besides the stated daily offering, an accumu-
lated series of animal sacrifices, just as in the case of
the passover : two young bullocks, one ram, seven he-
lambs of the first year as a burnt offering, besides a
meal offering of three tenth-parts mingled with oil for
each bullock, two tenth-parts for the ram and one tenth-
part for each lamb. Lastly, there is a sin-offering,
consisting p f one he-goat. The fixing of a definite date
is in the case of Pentecost the natural consequence of
the passover being fixed for 15th-zrst Nisan. In P
also \ye observe that a less value is attached to this
feast than to the others: it is held only for one day,
whilst the passover and tabernacle feasts are spread over
a longer time. This valuation is also reflected in the
fact that no significance as commemorating any event
in the redemptive history of the nation is assigned to
the festival.
Later Judaism made up for what was lacking in the
5. In later law in this respect, and gave the feast
Judaism. the historical interpretation which it had
hitherto lacked.
I t was assumed, in accordance with Ex. 19I, where the giving
of the law is dated on the third month after the Exodus, that the
romulgation of the law on Sinai was on the sixth or seventh of
&wan, the day of the feast of Pentecost ( P i s k k . 68 6 ; cp /ubi(.
11 6 1 17 141 151 where God‘s covenants with Moses, Noah
Abraham, are made a t new moon, or, a s the case may he, on th;
sixteenth day of the third month). I t is certain, however, that
this metamorphosis of the feast of the corn harvest into the
feast of the law-giving was late, probably not earlier than the
destruction of the temple when the system of sacrifices and
offerings came t o an end. Even in Josephus and Philo we
still find no trace of it. In Josephus (Ant. iii. 106, $ 252) the
feast is called Asartha (atrap& = Heb. il,fp, Aram. ml?$ ; so
also in the Talmud (PZs&k. 42 d and often). This expression
will be intended to characterise the feast either as the ‘con-
clusion * of the great feast of unleavened bread, or as the closing
harvest festival. In the more precise dating of the feast the
second day of the feast of unleavened bread was taken as the
starting point for which the fifty days were reckoned and the
‘sabbath’ of Lev. 23 15 was taken to mean the first day of that
feast.
W e have dealt so Far with the development of the
1 I n vv. 18 I various other offerings are also enjoined a s in
Nu. 28 z7$ Tiese, however, do not belong to the original text.
See Dillm. ad roc.
36.51
PENTECOST
feast as shown in the various stages of the written
6. Probable legislation. Unfortunately, in the case
of the feast of Pentecost we are not in a
origin. position to show from the historical books
at what period- it began to be celebrated, or what part
it played in the religious life of the Israelites, although
many passages allude in quite general terms to various
feasts. It is not till the period of later Judaism is
reached that we are expressly informed of its regular
celebration. The narrative in Acts shows a multitude
of worshippers from foreign parts as attending the
festival in Jerusalem (Acts2; cp Jos. BY ii. 31, Ant.
xiv. 134 xvii. 152). The silence of the older literature of
course proves nothing against the observance of the
feast in earlier times as attested by Josephus. As
bearing on the question of the antiquity of the festival,
however, the following circumstance is not without
interest. S o far as the great spring festival at the be-
ginning of harvest is concerned, we hear that even the
pre-Mosaic period knew something of the kind (see PASS-
OVER) ; of the autumn feast we are told that even the
Canaanites had observed a closely allied festival and
this festival had already become almost fully naturalised
in Israel at the time of the division of the monarchy,
as we see from I K. 1232 (see TABERNACLES. FEAST OF).
Pentecost, on the other hand, is not only relegated to a
very subordinate part in P and passed over in complete
silence by Ezekiel, but is also left unmentioned as
existing in the older time. It would be too much to
infer from this single circumstance that the feast was of
late origin ; and even from the difference of name in J
and E (see above, 5 I ) it is by no means safe to conclude
that it did not arise till after the revolt of the ten tribes
(so Steuernagel on Dt. 161). Even on the assumption
that E belonged to the northern kingdom and J to the
southern (though this is by no means certain), all that
could with certainty be inferred, would be a diversity
of local designation, which there may very well have
been, even in the case of an ancient feast.
There are other considerations, however, which, taken
in conjunction with what has been already adduced,
suggest the secondary character of pentecost. Under
FEASTS ( 4 . v . ) the general thesis has already been
propounded that all three feasts of harvest and in-
gathering were of Canaanite origin. This applies to
Pentecost in particular, in so far as it at least presupposes
settlement in the country, and if it is of equal antiquity
with the feast of the ingathering it will in all probability
have had its origin also in the Canaanite worship. If,
however, we closely scrutinise the significance of the
feast we shall find that, coming between passover and
tabernacles, it is, strictly, a superfluity. For this
reason Ezekiel is able quietly to set it aside. If the
purpose of the feast is to consecrate the harvest by
offering the first-fruits to God, that has already been
done at the passover feast, and very fittingly, at the
begiuning of harvest. If the chief stress is to be
laid on its character as a harvest thanksgiving, then
again it seems somewhat superfluous alongside of the
great feast of the ingathering which was held at the
close of the entire year’s husbandry ; there was no real
occasion for a special feast of thanksgiving or consecra-
tion for each separate kind of produce. Strict symmetry
is somewhat broken if a feast is held at the begin-
ning and at the end of the corn harvest whilst there
is only one to celebrate the ingathering of the fruits of
vineyard and orchard. Thus arises the conjecture that
perhaps the opening and closing feasts connected with
the corn harvest were not, originally, essentially distinct
feasts celebrated invariably and everywhere as separate ;
that it was one and the same feast celebrated at
different times, according to the nature of the case,
in different parts of the country. The difference
between the times at which harvest begins is in
Palestine very considerable ; between the climate of the
Jordan valley and that of Jerusalem and the colder
3652
 PENUEL
districts of the ’hill country’ it amounts to some three
or four weeks. The beginning of the harvest at
Jerusalem and the close of the harvest in the Jordan
valley approximately coincide. In this way it becomes
easy to see how, out of a single harvest festival, when
celebrated at such different times, there should ulti-
mately have arisen, as the separate districts of the
country were brought into closer relations and religious
customs tended more and more to be assimilated, a
double feast, or to speak more accurately, a double
celebration of the same festival idea. The connection
of the passover with the feast of unleavened bread-a
connection whereby the latter was thrust into the back-
ground by the passover feast-could not but favour the
rise of an independent harvest festival.
See the relative sections in the Archologies of Saalschfitr,
De Wette, Ewald Keil De Visser, Ben-
?. Literature. zinger Nowack ; drelli’s’art. ‘ Pfingsten ’ in
PRE(i!, vol. xi.; also the literature cited
under FEASTS and PASSOVER. I. B.
PENUEL or PENIEL (!JK.lJB, !J&’J? [Gen. 3230[31]
31 [p]]; Egypticised as Penu’aru [WMM, As. u. BUY.
1681; @ A N O ~ HCBKALI,
~ but in Gen. EIAOC TOY
esoy).
I . A place mentioned in connection with Jacob’s
wrestling with a divine being (Gen. 32 31 [p],cp 33 I O ) ,
and with the story of Gideon (Judg. 8 8 J , 17) ; fortified,
it is said, by Jeroboam ( I K. 1225). In Phcenicia the
name 8EoO ?rpbuwaov was given to a promontory near
Tripolis (Straho. xvi. 2 155), perhaps because in profile
it suggested a huge face. The god referred to in
Penuel, ‘face of God,‘ would be the God, originally
hostile to the Jacoh-tribe, who was worshipped at the
sanctuary of the city (?) of Penuel. Where was this city
situated? From the story in Genesis, as it stands, no
sure conclusion can be reached, since it is uncertain ( I )
on which side of the JABBOK( y . ~ . J’s ) narrative means
us to place Penuel. and ( 2 ) whether originally the story
of Jacob at Penuel may not have been quite unconnected
with the crossing of the Jabbok (or Yarmuk?). Conder
thinks of the summit of the Jebel Oshd in S. Gilead;
Merrill (Enrt .f the fordun, 370) of the T u l d ed-Qahab
( ‘ Hills of Gold ’), between which the Jabbok forces its
way into the Jordan. I t was at any rate on a hill
(Judg. 8 8 ) , and it was near Succoth (if the received
reading is correct), as both the Gideon-story and the
Jacob-story agree. If the present writer’s view of the true
form of the name now read ‘Succoth‘ be accepted, Penuel
will be the Hebrew name of the ‘tower,’ or castle, of
Salhad (the true reading, not only for J EGAR - SAHADUTHA
in Gen. 3147, but also for ‘Succoth’ in Gen. 3317a,
Judg. 8 5 8 ) . See SUCCOTH, and cp W RESTLING .
The reference to ‘ Penuel’ in I K. 1225 is due to corruption of
the text. i ~ i j should
g probably be S N ~ V *>I,‘the Israelites.’
2. Penuel appears twice as a personal name : (a)in the gene-
alogy of Judah, I Ch. 44, cp ZI. 18 JERED; (6) in that of
B E N J A MI N (5 9, ii. 6 ) in I Ch. S z 5 ( 5 ~ ’ [Kt.]
j ~ ; 9eAtqA [B]).
T. K. C .
PEOPLE (PP),Gen. 116. See GENTILES.
PEOR (YiVPiJ, the Peor,’ as if ’ the cleft ’ : or, if the
name is correct, cp IlK?, PARAN; @orwp’).
I . A mountain ‘that looketh toward Jeshimon ’ (AV),
or ’ that looketh down upon the desert’ (RV), ie., N E
of the Dead Sea (Nu. 2326); cp ‘Baal (of) Peor.’ I t
was on ‘the top of the Peor’ that Balaam is said to
have delivered his third oracle, and though a Mt. Peor
is mentioned nowhere else, it is conceivable that a
mountain not far from Beth-peor might have borne this
name ; Eusebius (233 79 ; 300 z ) at any rate asserts this.
It is, however, as Bennett (Hastings, DB. 3 7 4 3 ~ truly
) Uzzah.’ The name of the place where Uzzah (y.~.)died,
says, ‘ not certainly identified.’ Conder’s eloquent
description of the prospect from his ’ cliff of Peor ‘-i.e.,
the narrow spur which runs out to Minyeh. overlooking
the Dead Sea (Heth and 1210nb(~J, 146J)-may indeed
make one wish to adopt his view of the scene of Balaam’s
1 There is mention of a +oywp in Tohit 1 2 IN].
3653
PEREZ-UZZAH
prophecy; but, even if we accept the text as it stands, there
are reasons against it, as well as against rival theories.
Cp BETH-PEOR ; Driver, Dt. 62, Buhl, Pal. 123. Well-
hausen ( C U I 13) and Ed. Meyer ( Z AT 1129) assume the
identity of a Peor ’ and ‘ Pisgah.’ which may be practic-
ally right, hut raises a serious critical problem. Recog-
nising this, B. W. Bacon (Trip. Tyad. 229) supposes
‘ the Peor ‘ in Nu., I.c., to have been substituted by R,,
for ‘ the Pisgah ’ (cp Nu. 21 20). The problem of ‘ Peor.’
however, cannot be treated alone ; the set of names to
which it belongs needs critical examination. ‘ Peor,’
wherever it occurs, may be corrupt. See NEBO, § 2 .
2. A late abbreviation of B AAL - PEOR (q.v.), Nu. 25 18 3116
Josh. 22 17 (cp Dillm.).
3. See P AU .
4. A Judahite town, mentioned only by @BAL in Josh. 1.5592
(+ a
a wp) and by Eusehius (OS 300, 4 boyup), identified with the
mo .Kk.Fashar, SW. from Bethlehem on the way to Hebron.
T. K. C .
PERAZIM, MOUNT (D’u!!77 ; for 6 see BAAL-
PERAZIM ), Is. 2821t, commonly identified with Baal-
perazim.
In Crit. Ri6., however, Cheyne reads for P ’ z 13, O W ? , l’p,
‘(against) the city of liars,’ [I O’llS Pp. (On Y V see Cheyne,
Ps.?), on Ps.1746.)
PERESH (@B; B om. @ ~ p s c[AL] ; Pharer) a
Machirite name; I Ch. 716t. Peresh has a brother
called Sheresh, and yet the text continues ‘ his sons were
Ulam and Rekem.’ ‘ Sheresh’ is possibly a corrupt
variant of ‘ Peresh‘ (Che.). Cp M ANASSEH , § 9, ii.
PEREZ (EB,apparently ‘ a breach,’ but see below ;
+apse), sonofJudahbyTamar(Gen. 3829[J],4612[P].
Ruth 4 12 18, where AV P HAREZ ; Mt. 1 3 AV PHARES).
In Neh. 1 1 4 (uepes [B], cp Peresh and Sheresh in last
article) the ‘children of Perez,’ are the Perez clan,
called in Num. 2620 [PI the P HARZITE , RV Perexite
(*rlBn [gentilic], 6 @apru[r] [L]). Probably a place-
name as well as a clan-name; see 2 S. 5 2 0 , where,
‘ perazim ’ in B AAL - PERAZIM is popularly explained by
‘ perez-maim ’ (an outburst of water). In 2 S. 5 23J.
it has been maintained elsewhere (see M ULBERRY ), we
should probably restore a place-name Perez-jerahme’elim
(see below), and the same place-name meets us in
2 S. 68 as P EREZ - UZZAH . The special mention of ‘ the
house of Perez’ in Ruth412 and the appending of the
‘ generations of Perez ’ in Ruth4 18-22 (cp RUTH, BOOK
OF) are completely accounted for by the theory that there
is an older story underlying the narrative of Ruth, in
which certain members of a Jerahmeelite family were
made to take a journey to Mi+r (not Moab). Zarephath
of Mi+r was a natural refuge for a Jerahmeelite family.
Bethlehem (a corruption of Beth-jerahmeel?) had a
Jerahmeelite or Calebite connection ( I Ch. 2 1924 so$ ),
and the post-exilic genealogical theoristsregarded Hezron
b. Perez as the father of Jerahmeel and Caleb (I Ch. 29).
See R u m .
As to the origin of the name : the origins suggested in Gen.
3829 and z S. 520, to which we may add 2 S.67 (on the theory
that the Zarephathites and not the Philistines were the captors
of the ark) are popular fancies. ‘Perez ’ we may reasonably
conjecture, is a mutilation and corruptioi of Zarephath, just as
T AMAR (4.v.) is perhaps a corruption of Jerahme’elith. It is
very significant that in Neh.114 Shephatiah, who in Ezra88 is
closely related to Michael-i.e., Jerahmeel (see M ICHAEL , IO)-
appears as son of MAHALALEEL [q u.) which is another popular
or literary distortion of Jerahmeel, and that Mahalaleel is called
a son of Perez. ‘ Perez Jerahmeelim’ is therefore fully justified.
Cp SHEPHATIAH, 9. T. K. C.
PEREZ-UZZAH ( 2 S. 68, or Perez-uzza I Ch. 13 X I ;
A I A K O ~ H [BKAL] OZA [or azza]), as if ‘Breach of
on the way from Kirjath-jearim to the ‘ city of David.’
Probably, however, the name was rather different in the
ancient story on which 2 S. 6 1-13 is based. The name
which seems to be required is SHrefath (nais), out of
which Pere? ( yis) may easily have arisen ; Uzzah ’ has
perhaps come from ‘azzah ( ~ I P )which
, was appended to
3654
 PERFUME
Sarefath, as raddah ( great ’) was appended to Sidon
(Josh. 1 1 8 1928). ‘ Perez-uzzah’ thus became ’ Strong
(city) Zarephath.’ See ZAREPHATH.
Winckler’s view (GZ2 199)may be compared ; see also H. P.
Smiths Commentary. T. K. C.
PERFUME (ni?i. Y W ; M Y P O N MYPBYIKON,
M Y P E ~ I K O N ,unguenturn, Ex. 302535j’; or iYn27,
hk&hC?% TOYC MAKpAN ATTO COY [BKAQ], T A
M Y P B Y I A coy [Symm. in QmE. ; so Aq. C Y N e E C E I C ,
Theodot. MypBYOyC], pigmenta tuu, Is. 57 9 5).
The art of manipulating and compounding odori-
ferous substances for the gratification of the sense of
smell, is (needless to say) very ancient and very widely
diffused, especially in the East, still the principal
source of supply. For their supply of odoriferous
materials the ancients, like ourselves, were dependent
mainly on the vegetable kingdom -most frequently
the odoriferous gum-resins or balsams which exude
naturally or from wounds in the trunks of various trees
and shrubs, but sometimes the wood, bark, or leaves
themselves, rarely the flowers or seeds. There is n o
evidence of the Israelites having been acquainted with
the use in perfumery of the animal products which else-
where have played so great a part, such as Ambergris,
Castor, Civet, Musk ; perhaps the onlyanimal substance
so employed by them was O NYCHA ( g - . ~ . ) .
See AI.OES,ALMUG,BALM, B ALSAM, BDELLIUM, CALAMUS,
CANE, CASSIA CINNAMON,F RANKINCENSE , GALBANUM
LADANUM, M ~ R H S A F FR O N , SPICE, SPIKENARD, STACTE)
STORAX.The list :upplies important evidence as to the geoi
graphical extent and limits of Hebrew trade and commerce (see
TRADE A N D COMMERCE).
, As for the modes of preparation ; some of the most
important modern methods-such as those of distillation,
infusion, tincture, enfleurage-were wholly unknown.
The method of treatment with boiling oil or heated fat
so as to produce a precious oil or ointment was, however,
familiar ; the process is apparently alluded to in Job
4131 k3]: The pestle and mortar (Prov.2722), too,
were indispensable for the preparation of the ‘ powder
of the merchant’ [‘perfumer,’ see 6 1Cant.36.
Perfumes may be applied either as fumigations or as
unguents. On the former compare INCENSE.^ On the
latter compare OIL, ANOINTING, PERFUME BOXES.
On the religious symbolism of perfume and its use in
divine service and in exorcisms see INCENSE, MAGIC,
and SACRIFICE,^ and on its place in social and festive
life compare DRESS, 5 4. and MEALS, 5 11.
PERFUME BOXES, AV ‘tablets’ (de$? ’@,
d d t t t hannt$heJ, Vg. ocfctoriola), Is. 3zoj.. A bag of
myrrh was sometimes suspended from the neck (Cant.
113). But there is no other passage in which w ? ~ ,ncphef
can be proved to mean ‘ perfume ’ ; the supposed refer-
ence to scented words ’ in Prov. 279 (eiF>-nsJ) is ex-
#
tremely doubtful. Hence Haupt (on Is. 320 in.SBOT,
Heb.) would connect this w m with Ass. puJ&u, a to
anoint oneself’ (cp nupfuftu, Del. HWB, 551).
‘ Boxes of unguents ’ may perhaps be meant. W. R.
Smith thought that ‘ some kind of amulet ’ was intended.
PERFUMERS. RV’s substitute for AV’s APOTHE-
CARIES (g...).
By one of the curiosities of textual corruption the ‘Jerah-
meelites’ (who stepped into fresh prominence after the exile)
have become in the text of Neh. 38 O ‘ p ?.? ., ‘the perfumers’; by
a similar corruption in v. 32. they have become +i?
merchants ’ (Che.). Cp SPICE MERCHANTS.
PERGA ( n E p r H , Acts 1313f., 1425; P E R G A ) . ~ iouthwards into the Caicus. The later Hellenic and
Perga lay, according to Strabo (667), on the river
1 The n!bp of Ex. 3035, ‘perfume’ in AV, is in RV rightly
translated I NCENSE. So also Ecclus. 491; RV ‘ incense pre-
pared by the work of the apothecary,’ Heb. ‘salted, the work,
etc. ’ n m nvyn n5nm n m mop.
2’SeC Tobit 83 Ecclk 3848 and reff. in RaZ. Sem. 453, and
on the ?ll2!N (cpFRANKINCENSE)SeCINCENSE, $4(I),SACRIFICE.
3 But Pcrge in Plin. HN5 26, Pergn, Pomp. Mela, 1x4.
3655
PERGAMOS
Cestrus, 60 stades, or 79 m., from its mouth, the river
being navigable as far as the town. As a matter of fact,
the ruins of Perga a t Murtunu, about 1 2 m. NE. of
Adalia (Attalia), are about 5 m. W. of the AR-Su
(Cestrus), but about the distance inland indicated by
Strabo (hence Ptol. v. 5 7 reckons Perga among the in-
land towns-po6yeror). The acropolis of the city was
one of the heights on the fringe of the plateau between
the Cestrus and the Catarrhactes : the town, in Strabo’s
time, and in the time of Paul, lay on the plain to the
south of the hill.
On the hill itself stood the great temple of Artemis(Strab0 667.
p s r r ~ p o u rbrrou Tb nir ncpyaurs ‘~prip‘sar iaphv)’: si;
fragmentary granite columns on a platform to the SE. of the
hill have been considered to belong to the Artemisinm. hut
this opinion is rejected on grounds of style by Peter&, in
Lanckoronski (Stiidte Partzjh. 136).
The greatness of the city was closely connected with
the worship of Artemis (cp coins). Though called
Artemis by the Greeks, this deity w& similar to the
Artemis of Ephesus (see D IANA ), and the same as the
Cybele of northern and eastern Phrygia. On coins she
is sometimes Vanassa Preiia (written in the Pamphylian
alphabet), ‘ the Pergrean Queen ’ (according to inter-
pretation given by Ramsay in 1. Hell. Stud., 1880,
p. 246, now commonly accepted), sometimes Artemis
of Perga (’ApdprSos IIepyalas: see coin figured by
Conybeare and Howson, 1194). The type is either
that of the Greek huntress Artemis,’ with sphinx or
stag by her side, and armed with the bow, or a native
type representing the cultus-image, a stone column
bearing a rude resemblance to a human figure (see
PAPHOS,5 2). It is to this same deity that the name
Let0 belongs (cp inscr. published by Rams. in Bull. de
Corr. HeZl., 1883,p. 263 ; kpPa 6th plov Be& h ~ s o 3 r
res IIepyalwv r6Xewr ; and see Rams. Cities and Bish.
PhYygiu, 19.5). An annual festival was held in her
I t is clear from this that Perga
would be a centre of native feeling, in opposition to the
Hellenic city of Attaleia, a later foundation. Hence
the preaching of Paul and Barnabas made apparently
no impression during their short stay ; and the town
was not sufficiently important to call for long-continued
4ffort (contrast the case of Ephesns). For the probable
route of Paul northwards, see PISIDIA.
Perga and SIDE (q.v.) seem to have been rivals in dignity and
both on their coins claim the title metropolis, and in ecclesiaktical
%dministration(hut apparently not in civil) Pamphylia was
9ivided between the two cities Perga bein the metropolis of
:he western part ; when this dihsion of thefishoprics between
:he two metropolitans was made, is not known. During the
Byzantine period, Perga gradually fell into decay, and Attaleia
:ook its place as the seat of the metro olitan and the chief city
if Pamphylia. (For the history of Zhristian organisation in
Pamphylia, see Ramsay, Hisf. Geogr. of A M q q f i , and papers
~yGelzer inJPTxii.). W.J. W.
PERWMOS (€IC lT€prAMON, Rev. 1 1 1 ; BN
IIepy&po Rev. 212, thus leaving the nom. uncertain. AV
pm~un;ds=$ IIipYapor [Lat. Pergumus]. found in Paus. v. 13 3
!Y IIcpy&prt, urrlp aorapoi, Kakou ; id. vii. 16 I, viii. 49:
:tcyand in other authors. RV Pcrgamum=rb I I i p y a p o v [Lat.
Pergamuml, the usual form in inscriptions and authors [so
ilways in Strabo and Polybiusl).
A Mysian city, about 15 m. from the sea, command-
ng the valley of the Caicus (Bakir Chai),from which
1. Hietory. river it was distant about 4 m. to the N.
This district was the richest land in Mysia
IStrabo, 624). The earliest settlement occupied the
‘the , :onical hill, 1000 feet high, which rises between the
jelinus on the W. and the Cetins on the E., both flowing
Roman city spread over the ground a t the foot of the
?ill, south-westwards beyond the Selinus. The modern
:own of Bergumu covers part of the site of the lower
.own. The hill was the Acropolis of the later city.
The town was of little importance until after the
1 Sometimes this type shows the variation of a long tunic, in
,lace of the ordinary short tunic appropriate to the huntress
roddess.
3656
 PERGAMOS
death of Alexander the Great. On its strong hill King
Lysiniachus deposited 9000 talents of his treasure, and
this was appropriated by its guardian, Philetzxus of
Tion in Pontus to found the independent kingdom of
the Attalids (Strabo, 623 3). With the support of
Seleucus, the King of Syria, Philetaxus consolidated
his power (284-263 B .c.) and bequeathed it to his
nephew Eumenes I. (263-241 B.c.). The glory of
Pergamos began with the reign of Attalus I., another
nephew of Philetaerus (241-197 B.c.). The prestige of
the Pergamene kings was gained by their championship
of Hellenic civilisation against the Gauls or Galatians,
who for long terrorised western Asia (see G ALATIA , § I).
After defeating the Gauls near the sources of the Caicus
(cp Paus. i. S Z ) , Attalus took the title of king. His
success inspired Pergamene art.' Other victories added
to the dominions of Attalus a large part of western Asia
Minor, as far as Pamphylia (Pol. 1841) ; and he enlarged
his capital so that it became the fairest city in the East.
Then the Seleucid power increased, and the Pergamene
kingdom was reduced to its original narrow limits ; but
having sided with Rome in the struggle with the Seleucid
monarchy Attalus gradually reconquered his lost posses-
sions, and by the peace of 189 B.C. received from Rome
all within the Taurus. Under his son, Eumenes 11.
(197-159B . C . ) , Pergamos reached the zenith of her
splendour. He carried on the artistic and scientific
schemes of his father. He it was who built the great
Altar of Zeus, and beautified the temple and grove of
Athelia Nicephorus below the Acropolis (cp Strabo, 624,
Po!. 161). He also enlarged the library founded by
Attalus, which rivalled ultimately that of Alexandria, and
contained 200,ooo books (Strabo, 609). Attalus II., his
brother (159-138B.C. ), founded Attalia and PHIL.4-
DELPHIA ( g . ~ . ) . Attalus HI., the last king (138-133
B.c. ), who inherited little of the capacity of his ancestors,
*
left a will stipulating that Pergamos and other cities
should be free, whilst the of his kingdom was be-
queathed to the Romans, One Aristonicus, who
claimed to have the blood of the Attalids in his veins,
made an abortive attempt to seize the kingdom.
Pergamos continued to be the capital of the Roman
province3 (from 129 B.c.), even as it had beell the
capital of the Attalid monarchy-a position which had
its justification in history, and was recognised for at
least the next two hundred years, There is, however,
nowhere any express statement to this e f f e ~ t . ~
T h e three cities, Smyrna, Pergamos, and Ephesus were in
fact rivals for the honour of being capital of the Province (each
called itself ~ p P ; q'Arias), and in this struggle Pergamos had
nothing hut her history to set against the steadily growingcom-
mercial supremacy of her rivals ; and in the end the rivals won.
Ephesus, lying on the main route of eastern trade, asserted her
snDerioritv over both Smvrna and Pereamos.6 Probablv the
p&ctical -fact of the supremacy of Eihesus was recoinised
popularly long before it became the official view, and the change
came about gradually and without any official imperial enact-
ment. The order ofenumeration in Rev. 1TI, Ephesus, Smyrna,
Pergamos, etc., is true to the facts of the time, and the two
commercial cities stand a t the head of the list.
That for the first two ceituries of the Roman occnpa-
tion of Asia Pergamos was in the official view the chief
1 Plin. "3484 ; Paus. i. 25 2. See Harrison, M y U . and
Mon. o f d n c . Athens, 474f:; Gardner, Hist. of Gk. Scu@ture,
4528
2 Suspicion has sometimes been cast upon the genuineness of
the will ; hut a n inscription has vindicated the honour of Rome
(see Frankel, Znschrifen won Perg. i., no. 249).
3 Phrygia Magna had been separated from the rest of the
Pergamos realm ; it was given to Mithridates of Pontus until
IZO B.c., when he died. I t wac not definitely attached to the
Province of Asia until Sulla's time, 84 B.C.
4 For the expression of Pliny, HA75 30, Zonge clarissinttcnt
Asire, is simply on a level with that of Straho, 623, ;m+av+
u&s, both primarily referring to the place of the city in history
and art. Straho's remark, Z.C., +X.L 6.' nva $yrpoviav ~ p b rm a s
~6rroucrolirovp r b I G p a p w , shows how little we have to d o
with any definite officialy-fixed status.
6 The long struggle for supremacy has continued and
Ephesus has had to yield the palm to Smyrna, which is ndw the
greatest city in Asia Minor (see Murray, Handbook t o A M , 7of:,
and c p SMVRNA).
3657
PERGAMOS
city of the province, is to be gathered indirectly from
2, Reference the fact that, as early as 29 B.C.,the city
in Rev. 73. possessed a temple dedicated to Rome and
Augustus by the Provincial Synod (Korvbv
'Aulas) as its place of meeting (Tac. A n n . 437).
Ephesus was not then recognised as a leading city.
Pergamos thus gained the honour of the Neokorate
before either Smyrna (temple erected to Tiberius, 26
'
A. D., Tac. A n n . 4 56) or Ephesus (temple to Claudius,
41-54 A.D. possibly). The second Neokorate (and
second temple of the Emperors) in the case of Perganios
dates from the reign of Trajan ; in the case of Ephesus
only after 127 A . D . , in the reign of Hadrian (see NEO-
COROS). The discussion of this point is necessary as
upon a correct appreciation of the position of the city
depends the interpretation of the striking phrase of Rev.
213, ' thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is' (so
AV ; better, RV 'where Satan's throne is,' liaou 6 Opbvor
TOG Za~avi?).
Various interpretations have been proposed.
( a ) In view of the special prominence a t Pergamos
of the worship of four of the greatest deities2 of the
pagan religion-Zeus, Athena, Dionysus, and Asclepius
--some have referred the phrase thereto. Zeus Soter
(the Saviour), Athena Nicephorus (Bringer of Victory)
were honoured as having given victory over the Galatai.
Athena's greatest temple as Warden of the City (Polias)
occupied nearly the highest point of the Acropolis.
This view must be rejected on the ground that Pergamos
in no wise stood in the position of champion of pagan
ritual against Christianity. Moreover, in Asia Minor
the most formidable rival of the new religion was not
the religion of Greece, but the development of that
primitive Oriental nature-worship which presented itself
with overpowering might in the cult of the so-called
Aphrodite of Paphos and Diana of Ephesus.
I f any city and worship merited the figure in the Apocalypse
it Was Ephesus with her goddess Diana ; more especially d
perhaps already a t the time of the composition of the Apocalypse
there had occurred a pagan revival a t Ephesus (this revival took
place a s early as 104 A.D. See Hicks, Znscr. o f B r i t . dlus.
3 67.87, and cp Rams. Ck. in Ronz. Enzp. 143).
(a) More -s~ecifically,some haye Seen in the phrase a
reference to the great Altar of Zeus on the terrace below
the temple of Athena Polias.
The sacrificial altar proper consisted like that at Olympia of
the ashes of the sacrifices (Paus.v. 1318) hut rose in this Lase
from the centre of a platform about 90 ieet square and 20 feet
high, with a flight of steps cut into it on the western side. This
substructure has been recovered, together with the famous frieze
of the Gigantomachia which ran round it. This frieze is ' a
theatrical work of tremendous energy' (Holm Gk. Hist., ET
4 468) : in it the whole Hellenic pantheon apdeared in conflic;
with the Giants, many of the latter being represented with a
human body ending in serpents' coils (see Mitchell, Hist. ofGk.
Sculbture, 571 fi).
Artists' -skill combined with the natural grandeur of
its position to make the great altar a fit emblem of the
kingdom of Satan as the smoke of the sacrifice rose into
the air from the huge platform 800 feet above the city.
Still, we must be on our guard against our modern feeling
for what is picturesque or grand. Would a dweller in
the great cities of Asia, among the treasures of an art
which lived only through its connection with religion,
feel that the altar a t Pergamos was something apart and
typical ?
(c) A third view is that the reference is to the worship
of Asclepins. whose temple was, as usual, the centre of a
medical school, with the right of asylum (Tac. A n n .
363 ; Paus. ii. 268). Under the empire this cult was
fashionable (cp coins), and Asclepios ultimately became
the representative deity of the city. The snake was his
special attribute (cp art. ' Asklepios ' in Roscher's Lex.
1 The temple dedicated to Augustus some time before 5 B.C.
was not one that entitled the city to he called Neocoros, because
(I) it was a dedication by the city merely, not by the K o d v ,
(2) it stood in the precinct of Artemis, not independently. Cp
Hicks, Inscr. of Brit. Mus., no. 522.
C p the oracle in Frankel, InscLr. w n Pcrg. 2 239, of date
about 167 A.D., where all four are mentioned.
3558
 PERIDA
der Myth. 1 6 1 5 8 , and Pauly-Wiss. Realenc. 2 16428 ;
Farnell, Cults of the Greek States), and the snake was
to the Christians the symbol of evil (cp Rev. 129 202
2 Cor. 11 3). His special title was ‘ Saviour ’ (Zwmjp, or
Zw.r+p T& lixwv), which would have very different
a,sociations for the Christian. In spite of these striking
features, the reference in Rev. can hardly be to this
worship.
Laodiceia also had an Asklepieion and S MYR N A (pu.). The
word b’p6voc also undoubtedly refer; to the Acropolis hill: hut
the temple of Asclepius lay in the plain, at some little distance
from the town (Pol. 32 27, cp Paus. v. 13 3).
( d ) The reference is to the primacy of the city as a
centre of the worship of the emperors ; it was the earliest
and the chief centre of that worship, which was the out-
ward expression of loyalty to the imperial system.
‘Refusal to comply with the established and official
worship of the emperors ’ became the ‘ regular test and
touchstone of persecution’ (Rams. Church in the Rom.
Em?. 250 f: ), for the imperial cultus was part of the
machinery of government, and such refusal constituted
treason. The whole history of early Christianity is the
story of the passage from legality to absolute proscrip-
tion. If Rev. 213 was written after the accession of
Trajan (98 A.D.) the expression ‘throne of Satan’
becomes specially appropriate. For, towering at the
very summit of the Acropolis, there had recently been
erected the temple of Trajan, a symbol visible far and
wide of that worship which was the declared foe of
Christianity. The primacy of Pergamos in the province,
and as the seat of the imperial cult, explains the allusion
to the martyr Antipas. For Antipas must be taken to
typify a long series of ‘faithful witnesses’ who had
defied the power of ‘Satan’ at the tribunal of the
Roman governor, whose duty it was to proceed against
the illegal religion. The reference of TJ. 13 may be to
the persecution of Domitian (after 95 A.D.). [Cp
R OMAN EMPIRE.] The thought of official persecution
has suggested the words of v . 12, ‘he that hath the
sharp two-edged sword,’ selected from the description
in Rev. 11 2 f i (cp v. 16). The actuality of the message
to Pergamos as compared with the colourlessness of
most of the other messages (especially of that to Ephesus)
probablythrows somelightupon the placeof composition.
For the history of the Pergamene kingdom see Holm, Gk.
Hist., ET, 427gJ, 4643, with references there. Good account
of history and recent discoveries by Ussing, Pergarnos (1899).
The results of the German excavations are as yet only partially
published. W. J. W.
PERIDA (+epelAa [BK]), Neh. 7 57 = Ezra 2 55
PERUDA (q.v.).
PERIZZITES, RV PERIZZITE(Vl3D;0 1 @epezalot
[or -ZSOI] [BKADEFL] ; in Ezra 91 +epeceet [B].
-pezl [A]), one of the pre-Israelitish populations of
Palestine (Gen. 1520 Ex. 3 8 17. etc. ; see AMORITES) ;
also PHERESITES~ (in I Esd. 869 ; RV -EZITES, so EV
2 Esd. 121 and AV Judith 56). The name, however,
reqnires renewed investigation, the prevalent theory
being open to serious objection.
W e begin by collecting the biblical notices. Accord-
ing to Judg. 1 4 f: the a Perizzites’ were overcome by
1. References. Judah and Simeon ; but Josh. 1715 (as
the text now stands; @BA omits the
two names) mentions ‘ the Perizzites and the Rephaim ’
as occupying a wild un-cleared region (ip),perhaps N.
of Shechem, which was to be taken frbm them and
cleared by the b n e Joseph. According to Josh. 113
they dwelt in the hill-country’ (like the Amorites, etc.).
In Gen. 137 3430 ( J ) the Canaanites and the Perizzites
are mentioned together ; also in 2 Esd. 1 2 1 (ferezei),
with the addition of the Philistines. In Gen. 1016 f:
(R) the Philistines are not mentioned at all (but cp
v. 14), and the Perizzites too are conspicuous by their
absence.
Some of these data have been thought (e.g., by Dill-
1 I Esd. 869 agrees with Ezra 9 I (glossed, see Guthe, SBOT).
3659
PERSEUS
rnann and Kautzsch’) to favour the theory that the
2. Earlier perizzites were survivors of the pre-Canaan-
population of W. Palestine, which,
theory. itish
after the Canaanitish invasion, could main-
tain itself only in the open country. But to infer from
Gen. 1015, where the Perizzites are not mentioned, that
they were pre-Canaanitish, is difficult in the face of
Gen. 137 3430 (see, however, Kautzsch). J no doubt
believed that the Perizzites (if that be really the name)
were a separate people, contemporary with the Canaan-
ites. As to the reference to the ‘Perizzites and the
Rephaim’ in Josh. 17 15,it gives no support to Dillmann‘s
theory, man and m ~ a i ibeing
l most probably alternative
readings (cp R EPHAIM ).
Since vng, Dt. 3 5 I S618 (cp VILLAGE), means the
inhabitants of unwalled villages, it is plausible to deny
any distinction between *!:B and v??, and to
tizE suppose that the term ‘ Perizzite ’ is really a
clan-name equivalent to vn? (so Moore,
Yudges,17). But there are still stronger grounds forthink-
ing that via is really an early corruption of ’112, GIRZITE.
@ may he quoted for the theory that ‘ Perizzite is the name
of a clan, for in Dt. and IS. it has +epps<aroc (-4‘‘. @A in Sam.);
the other Gk. versions have &&x,cno‘, & T ~ X L ( T (cp
~ F Symm.
in Judg. 5 I I Zech. 24). It appears to he more probable, how-
ever, that the older view that Perkites is the name of a people
is nearer the truth. ym may he a corrupt form either of *ngy+
‘Zarephathite’ (see PELETHITES), or of q i 2 , ‘Girzite’ (it.,
Geshurite). It is somewhat in favour of ‘Zarephathite’ that in
Josh. 1715 ‘Perizzite’ and ‘Rephaim’are put side by side for
the same people, and that *n&g is almost certainly (like O-NB~)
a corruption of p’ngix. It is also true however that 2 and a
are liable to confusion, and in I S.27 8 H. P. Smilh proposes to
emend into -115(the Perizzites and those dwelling in Gezer
are combined in @ of Josh. 16 IO). At any rate, the people
referred to cannot be safely described as a remnant of the pre-
Canaanitish population of Palestine. T. K. C.
PERSEPOLIS ( T E ~ C ~ I T O ~ ~[AI, I N ITEPCIPO~IN
[VI, in accus.). The city where, according to 2 Macc.
9 zj., Antiochus Epiphanes attempted to plunder a
temple (or temples, iepouuXe?v); he was put to flight
by the people of the country, and broke up his camp
with disgrace (shortly before his death). See ELYMAIS,
where it is pointed out that the name Elymais in the
11 passage, I Macc. 61, is probably corrupt. From
2 Macc. 113 it appears that a temple of Nanaea was
meant. Now NANBA (q.v.) was an ancient Elamite
goddess. It would be not unnatural that out of the
statement ‘Persepolis is a city renowned for wealth’
(II~pu.hoXlsA n i d X i s b 8 o f o s ~ X o h y )should arise
the corrupt reading, ‘Elym(a)is in Persia is a city
renowned for wealth’ ( P d v eXup(a)is2 H. E. nX.). But
that there was a temple of Nanrea near the ruins of Per-
sepolis in 164-163 B.C. is not probable. For Persepolis
was not in Elymais ; it was the capital of Persia proper,
and had long since been shorn of its splendour by
Alexander the Great, who gave up the city to be plun-
dered, and caused the royal palaces (those can hardly
have been temples-only fire-altars) to be set on fire.
It is, therefore, not as having any direct connection with
biblical history (like Susa), but simply as the original
home of the Achaemenian dynasty, and as the seat of
the sepulchres of its kings, that Persepolis with its still
magnificent ruins interests us.
.
See Noldeke, art. ‘ Persepolis,’ EBP) Stolze PersejoZis
2 vols. Bed. 1882 (an account of the Lxpeditibn of F. C:
Andrea;, with introd. on the inscriptions by Noldeke); Flandin
et Coste, Perse ancienne, and Voyage en Perse (1851.52);
Dienlafoy, L’art antique de Za Perse (1881); Curzon, Persia
(r892), 2 248.8 T. K, c.
PERSEUS ( m q ~ c e y c ) . ‘ king of Chittim’ (see
KITTIM, end), is alluded to in I Macc. 8 5 . The
reference is to the battle of Pydna (168 B . c . ) , ~in which
1 Riehm HWBP) 1211.
2 eaohrc bould he confounded with rhvp[aIic (~pvh\[alrc)
under
the influence of the tradition that Naniea’s was the temple re-
ferred to.
3 Near modem Azam on the coast-road on the west shore of
the gulf of Salonica.
3660
 PERSIA
Perseus was defeated and the Macedonian kingdom
brought to an end (cp MACEDONIA).
His conqueror was L. A3milius Paullus. At SAMOTHRACEscription of Persepolis (Spiegel, 468,Weissbach, 34f:)
[q.u.j Perseus surrendered to the victor, and was taken as a
captibe to Rome, but allowed to pass the remainder of his days
as a state-prisoner at Alba on Lake Fucinus. This was the end
of the empire of Alexander which had lasted for 144 years. For
the character and aims of Perseus, see Mommsen, Rom. Hisf
ET 2 2 8 7 s Z93f: W.J. W.
PERSIA
Name ($ I).
Biblical references ($ 2).
Religion and culture ($8 7-9).
Chronology ($ IO).
Land and people (0 3). History ($0 11-20).
Languageand literature (85 4-6). Bibliography (0 21).
Under the name Persia Media also is included,
Persia and Media, when known to the Hebrews, having
1. Name. been closely united.
Media in Hebrew is '?E : ethnic, 3lb a Mede.
Persia is bll ; ~ E P C W N [BKAL ; both Theod. and
LB in Dan.], hut in Dan. 112 6 mpu& [BAQ, 871, in 2 Ch.
3620 p$ov [BAL] (so, in the reverse way, I I r p u w for ?inin
Is. 21 2) ; adj. Persian, ?D??, Neh. 12 zz ; N:QyS [Kt.], ?iN,plS
[Kr.]in Dan. 6 28 [29l (Aram.); +OB IIrpuov [BRAL]; five times form of ParthavaS, the Parthians. called IIapsuaior by
plur. in EV Persians. In the inscriptions of the Achaemenids,
0. Persian Pdrsu uta &?&fa, Semitic version Pursu (gentilic
Pursa), andMadcii(du-u-u)[Nabirn. Cyl. Pursii], Sus. or Elam.
version Pur& and Mutu (gentilic Pur&).
' Persia' and ' Persians ' are the designations of the
kingdom and dynasty (respectively) of Cyrus and his
successors after the commencement of the Greek period
(on D?: in Ezek. 27 IO see P ARAS ).
The passages both Hebrew and Aramaic are 2 Ch.
3620~2f.=Ezra11f.837 43572461471 99Neh.1222,
besides Dan. (11 z ) and Esth. (5 I I O ) , which are later than
the Chronicler. The only one of the passages in Ezra-
Neh. that appears on the surface to be free from the
Chronicler's redaction is Ezra 99, and even if this
passage be really from Ezra's hand, the presumption
from the usage as exhibited is strong against the
authenticity of the word D?? ; of course, if the conten-
tion of C. C. Torrey (see E ZRA , 5 I, n. 2) be right,
and the Chronicler's hand is the only one to he recognised
in Ezra, the case is still clearer. Even in Dan. 9 I , where
Ilarius is said to have been made king over the kingdom
of the Kasdim, he is called not ' the Persian,' hut ' son
of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes.'
With these phenomena agrees the usage of Babylonian
contract tablets from Cyrus to Artaxerxes, where the
king's name appears as a Cyrus (Cambyses, Darius,
etc.), king of Babylon, king of the countries,' or simply
'king of the countries' (see KB 4, 1896, p. 258 8 , Dan.
Peiser's trans]. ).
N o doubt Cyrus is called 'king of Persia' (Pursu) in the
Chronicles of Nabonidus 2 1. 15, hut also king of A n h n (an
Elamitic province ; on the' relation between these see Tiele,
B A G 469), Id. i6: 1. I, Cyrus Cylinder, 1. 12; but these both
represent him prior to the capture of Babylon. Th: Cyrus
Cylinder ZZ. 20.22, gives his formal title thereafter : CyrFs,
king of hosts, great king, mighty king, king of Babylon (lit.
Tintinki), king of &mer and Akkad (entire Babylonia), king
of the four quarters (of the world), son of Cambyses, the great
king, king of (the city) AnSan, grandson of SiSpiS (=Old Pers.,
CiSpiS, Gk. Tei'spes),the great king, king of [the city] AnSan,
etc. (For all these see K B 3 2 5 I Z O ~ . ,and especially Hagen
in Delitnch and Haupt, Beitr. 2 2 0 5 8 )
Even in the Old Persian inscriptions, where we find
Darius naming himself ' king in Persia' (Pirsaiy), this
title does not appear alone.
Thus, Behistun, 1 I , 'I,, Darius, the great king, t h e king of Erythrazan Sea or Persian Gulf. The western countries
kings, king in Persia,. king of the provinces, and the much
more common expression ' I, Dirius, !he great king, king of
kings, king of the countries of many tribes, king of this great
parth far a n d wide' (Inscr. Alvend, IC. I T 8) or more briefly
the great king, king of kings, king of the& many regions
(Inscr. Persepolis, 2, ZZ. I X),and the like, i n connection with
which he sometimes cails himself ' a Persian' (as Inscr. Nakch-
i-Rustam, 1, I. 13); these more general titles are those exclu-
sively found in the (Persian) inscriptions of Xerxes and his
successors Artaxerxes I. Artax. Mnemon, and Artax. Ochus
(see for tdese Spiegel, A k K ,esp. 2, 42, 46, 48, 50,. 52, 58, 60, parts of Iran.
62 64 66 68-transl. on opp. pp. ; especially Weisshach and
Bang,'AhK 12, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 46-transl. on
OPP. PP.).
3661
PERSIA
Persia (Payxi)is mentioned repeatedly as one province
of the empire (Behistun, 1 1 4 3 4 2 7 , etc. ). In the first in-
Darius speaks of ' this land Persia ' more particularly,
as is natural. I n accord with these facts is the assump-
tion by the Greek kings of a title similar to that of the
earlier Babylonian kings ; so Antiochus Soter (280-260
B. c. ) in his cuneiform inscr. 1I J? (Schr. KB 3 z 136,
trans]. by Peiser) :-I Antiochus, the great king, the
mighty king, the king of hosts, king of Babylon, king
of the countries, ... princely son of Seleucus the
Macedonian (MuRKndunai) king, king of Babylon. '
I t seems probable that the Chronicler's frequent use
of the name D?? is intended to distinguish the empire
that began with Cyrus from the Macedonian power that
overthrew and assumed it. F. B.
Some scholars identify the Persians with the ParQuaS
or BarSuaS of the Assyrian inscriptions ; but this is very
doubtful as, even in the time of the Sargonids, they still
lived much more to the N. than the Persians did during
the Median rule. ParSuaS seems rather to be an Assyrian
the Greeks.
In Gen. 102 MADAI [p.v.] is named among the sons
__ - - _--
of lapheth. following Gomer and rMalgog---i.e., the
2. Biblical Gimirrhi and the Lydians-and preced-
references. ing Javan-Le., the Ionians and others.
Persia is not mentioned, hut is certainlyre-
garded by the author as belonging to Media. z K-176
and 1811 relate how the king of Assyria, after having
conquered Samaria, transferred the captives from the
kingdom of Israel to ' the towns of Media.' In Is. 131;
the Medes who do not care for silver nor desire gold
are called upon by Yabw&to fight the Babylonians. Cp
Is. 21 2, where Elam is added to Media. ' The kings of
Media' are mentioned among others in Jer. 2525 and
51 I I as enemies of Babylon. In Ezra 6 z a decree of
Cyriis is found a t Ahmetha (Ecbatana) in the country
of Media.
The references in the OT to the Persians, either singly
or joined to the Medes, are rather many, hut only in
the later historical books and in Daniel and Esther.
It is very improbable that they are meant in Ezek.
27 IO 38 5 . where they are said to serve in foreign armies
with LIJD and Put or with Cush (cp PARAS). Perhaps
~ ~ should1 9 he read instead of ~ 1 5 .
Kings of Persia are mentioned in Ezra99; Cyrus in nCh.
3622/: EzraliJ8 3 7 435; Darius in 4 2 4 Neh.1222; Ar.
taxerxes in Ezra 7 I ; all three in 6 14. Cyrus the Persian also in
6 z g [z81 10 I, andpassim. For Darius the Mede in Dan. 6
and jupassirn, see DARIUS.The prince or angel of the Persians
is mentioned in Dan. 101320. By 'the kings of Medes and
Persians,' Dan. 820 is meant the whole Medo-Persian empire.
Belshazzar's empirelis given to the Medes and Persians, Dan.
528. The immutable laws of the Medes and Persians are
referred :o in Dan. 69 13 16 [8 IZ 151 (cp Esth. 119); their army,
seven princes, princesses in Esth. 1 3 14 18, and the chronicles of
their kings in 102.
I n the N T the Persians and Persia never occur, only,
in Acts 29, M$or with the Parthians and Elamites.
The Medes and Persians mentioned in the Bible in-
habited in historical times only a part of IrHn or ErHn,
3. Land and the land of the Aryans, which extended
W. to E. from the Zagros range to the
people. Hindu Kush and the Indos, and N. to S.
from the Caspian Sea and the Turanian steppes to the
Persia. Media proper, and Little Media (Atropatene) are
separated from the eastern provinces, of which Bactria,
Margiana (Merv), and Sogdiana (Sughda) are the best
known, by an immense barren desert, running from N.
to S. and ending only where the coastland, in a corre-
sponding degree inhabitable, of the Persian Sea begins.
It is only along the SE. shore of the Caspian Sea that
the land of the Hyrcanians unites the eastern and western
As a whole. Irgn, lacking large rivers and extended
valleys, and for the most part mountainous and cold, is
3662
 PERSIA
not particularly fertile. There are several exceptions,
however, such as Persia itself, and especially the north-
eastern provinces, Bactria and Sogdiana, where the
climate is mild and the soil rich. It is remarkable that
just those two important satrapies did not rise against
Darius, whilst rebellion everywhere prevailed. In general
it may be said, that IrHn was a country well fitted to
foster an industrious, proud, manly, and warlike race, and
to be for some centuries the centre of a mighty empire.
It is quite certain that the founders of this empire,
the Medo-Persians, were not the original inhabitants of
the country. They belonged to the Aryan stock. When
the Assyrians, as they often did, directed their expeditions
to Media, and even built there some strong places to
maintain their supremacy, the kings they fought did not
bear Aryan names, which become more frequent only in
the time of the Sargonids. Aryan tribes, coming from
the NW. or the N., and spreading first in the eastern
part of the land, seem to have conquered the western
regions little by little, and to have settled there in small
independent kingdoms, before the Median monarchy was
established. If there is any truth in what BErBssos tells
about a Median dynasty reigning over Babylon in the
remotest times, this dynasty has nothing in common
with the Aryan Medes, but probably was of the same
origin as the Kassites, Elamites, and other eastern
neighbours of Babylonia.
A complete ethnology and glossology of the Iranian
peoples would be out of place here, as our scope is
4. Language. limited to the two nations with whom
the Hebrews came into contact. The
Old Persian language we know from the inscriptions of
the Achaxnenidsand from the proper names and sundry
words recorded by the ancients. It is closely allied to
the Avestan language (the two dialects of which seem to
have been spoken in the eastern and northern parts of
the empire), and more remotely to the Vedic and Sanskrit
languages. About the language of the Medes we know
very little. Judging from the Median names that we
know, and from the fact that Darius used the same
Aryan language for the great Behistun inscription in
Media as he did for those he had incised in Persia, we
may assume that the Old Median language differed only
dialectically from the Old Persian. Still, the inscriptions
of the younger Achanenids show that the Old Persian
was then already in decline, and perhaps supplanted
by a younger dialect or by the widespread Aramaic.
Some scholars call the second of the three languages
used in the Achremeniau inscriptions Median. If so,
it would not be the language of the rulers, who were
certainly Aryans, but the idiom of the conquered race,
who may have constituted the majority of the population.
In all probability the second language is better called
Susian or Neo-Susian, as the idiom of the province
where the Persian kings had their principal residence
could hardly be wanting in their inscriptions.
The system of writing used for the Persian text of the
Achremenian inscriptions is one of those commonly called
5. System cuneiform. It has been taken for granted
that it was taken by the Persians either
Of writing' from the Babylonian or Assyrian, or as
some think, from the Susian, cuneiform. An accurate
comparative study of the three systems, however, shows
clearly that this is not the case. The Susians reduced the
many hundreds of Babylonian signs to some hundred
and twelve, but retained the syllabic character of the
writing, the same signs for the same or cognate sounds,
and the use of determinative signs with the same signi-
fication. Not so the Persians. All they took from their
predecessors was the wedge in three shapes- 7, -,
and <. They rejected all determinatives, only
separating the words by a sloping wedge \, and,
instead of a syllabary, they composed a real alphabet of
thirty-six signs, none of which corresponds to the sign
3663
PERSIA
expressing the same sound in the Babylonian or Susian
writing, or looks like a modification of it. If they had
intended only to simplify the older syllabaries, they would
at least have retained the simple vowel signs of the
. . . 7. 7,
t- F*
Babylonians ; but for a, i, and u they write 777, .
Therefore,
it is clear that they made independent combinations of
the wedges. It is hardly conceivable, however, that they
would have taken such trouble, only for the purpose of
incising a few inscriptions, as the cuneiform, being only
destined to be carved in stone or on clay tablets, could
not be used for what had to he written on other material.
They wrote royal annals, official documents, letters, and
communications from the king to the Iranian satraps in
their own language, and even the Aramaic or Greek
despatches sent to the satraps and other governors of
Western Asia and Egypt were translations of Persian
originals. Now, for this purpose they apparently used,
not the old Pahlavi, which appears first on the coins of
the Arsacids, and, as its name indicates, is of Parthian
origin, but one of the Aramaean alphabets of Babylonia
or Assyria, adapted to their own idiom, and it is on such
an already existing alphabet that the Old Persian cunei-
form appears to be based. At any rate, in adopting this
simple and practical method of writing instead of the
clumsy system of their new subjects, the Persians
showed great originality and a sound sense of the
character of their language.
Weissbach (in ZDMG 48664) tries to prove that the Persian
cuneiform was invented not earlier than under Darius Hystaspis.
But if the inscription of Cyrus, found at Murghxh, refers to
Cyrus the Great, which is most probable not to Cyrus the
Younger, the brother of Artaxerxes I., as Geissbach holds, the
Persian cuneiform must have been in use at least in Cambyses'
time. Other arguments against Weissbach are urged by Ed.
Meyer, GA 3 49.
We do not know whether there ever was a written
literature, Droperlvso-called, in this Medo-Persian idiom.
. I
6. Literature. if there was, it is now irretrievably lost.
That is not very probable. Though
no longer barbarians, the subjecis bf the Median and
Persian kings were a simple, hard-working people, and
even the higher classes were given to riding and shoot-
ing more than to the cultivation of fine arts and letters.
The great kings themselves were totally absorbed by
the founding, organising, and maintaining of a large
empire, and by constant warfare against rebels and
foreign nations.
National songs, epic and lyric, they certainly h a d ;
but these may have been transmitted orally from one
generation to another. According to Pliny ( H N 301).
the Greek author Hermippus compiled his description
of the Persian religion from two millions of original
verses, and a well-known Persian tradition mentions
two official copies of the holy scriptures of the Zoro-
astrians, preserved by the Achzemenian kings, one of
which was burnt by Alexander, whilst the other was sent
by him to Greece, to be studied and translated. There
is some truth in both statements, however exaggerated
they may be. But the religious documents of the
Iranians were certainly composed in the language of
the Avesta, even if they were not the same as the
books, of which the Avesta known to us contains only
the scanty remains, and this religious literature may
have been the only one extant at the Medo-Persian
time.
The inscriptions of Darius Hystaspis and his suc-
cessors prove that they were worshippers of Aura-
., aeligion. mazda, ' the great God, who created
this earth, who created this heaven, who
created happiness for man,' and to whom they owed
their royal dignity as 'one king, one monarch over
many.' It was this God who intrusted Darius with
sovereign power over the land when it was full of
lying rebels, and who helped him to smite them and to
3664
 PERSIA
smother all revolt. Darius admonishes his subjects
‘ t o obey the commands of this God, and to walk in
the straight path unhesitatingly.’ Now a God thus
described has ceased to be a nature-god; he is the
supreme being of an ethical religion. It is true that
the ilchaemenids, as well as Darius, continued to wor-
ship their old clan-gods (hadd daguibir vithibii) ; but
eveti in the Avesta Mazda, the all-wise Lord, is sur-
rounded by a staff of minor heavenly powers, Ames’a-
spCfitas and Yazatas, partly personifications of his own
attributes, partly old Iranian gods, too popular to be
neglected, and therefore assimilated with some modifi-
cations by the new creed. There is no essential differ-
ence between the theology, the demonology, and the
moral doctrines of the inscriptions and those of the
Avesta. The Persians may not have followed all the
precepts of the holy scriptures as perhaps only the
Magi d i d ; biit even the Avesta states that they were
not observed everywhere among the Iranians, even in
countries belonging to Mazda. The Auramazda of the in-
scriptions is no other than the Ahura Mazdaof the Avesta.
And if the Persians were Mazda-worshippers, as the
younger Achzmenids certainly were, they were also
Zarathustrians, for there is no other Mazdaism than the
Zarathustrian. All suppositions to the contrary must
be rejected as unhistorical. It has been said that the
religion of the Persians, as described by Herodotus and
other Greek writers, differs too much from the religion
taught in the Avesta to be considered as identical with
it. But there are manifest errors in Herodotus’
description, and it must be taken into consideration
that the Greek historian only states what he had heard
about the real religion of the Persian people, whilst the
Avesta contains the ideals of the priests. The same
argument might be used to maintain that the Bible was
unknown to or at least not acknowledged as the Word
of God by not a few Christian rulers and nations.
Moreover, the Avesta was certainly not composed in
Persia, nor even in Media proper, and the religious
observances may have differed in the various provinces,
according to the divergent local traditions that could
not be disavowed even after the new faith was accepted.
S o the same gods are called bagas in Persia and Media,
yazatas in the country where the Avestan language was
spoken. And though the name for priests in the Avestn
is only atharvans and the name m a p ? is wholly un-
known to it in that sense, it is the only name for priest
in use as well in Persia as in Media, where the Magi
formed a kind of tribe.
Whilst it is evident that the younger Achaemenids
were Mazdayasnnns we are not certain whether the
same may be said of their predecessors of the older
branch and of the Median kings. Those scholars who
think that Zarathus’tra was a contemporary of Darius’
father Hystaspes (ViStLspa) cannot but regard them as
the first confessors of the reformed religion, and others,
though rejecting the premiss, equally hold that the
Zoroastrian faith did not spread in Media and Persia
till Darius I. ascended the throne, perhaps even later.
According to both, Cyrus. Cambyses, and the kings of
Media were polytheists, da&vayasnans as the Avesta
calls them. Others again, and among them such
historians as Noldeke and Ed. Meyer, think it most
probable that, at least from Phraortes (Fravarti5)-
which even means ‘ confessor ‘-downwards, all the
rulers of Media and Persia were Mazda-worshippers.
The writer of this article is of the same opinion, on
grounds developed elsewhere (see 21, below) more
amply than is here possible. If Cyrus, on his Baby-
lonian cylinder, calls himself a worshipper of Marduk,
as Cambyses appears on Egyptian monuments as an
adorer of the gods of Memphis and Sais, it was only
‘the priests’ diplomacy’ to which the kings did not
object for political reasons. It has been truly said
that trained historians (historisch geschdten, Noldeke)
could not be led astray by such royal decrees. Besides,
3665
PERSIA
Darius and Xerxes, though avowed Mazdayasnans, did
quite the same.
Still, if the Zoroastrian religion was that of the kings
and of the ruling race and the upper classes in Persia
and Media-in a Susian inscription Auramazda is called
the god of the Aryans (unnup arryandm)-it cannot be
denied, and even the Avesta admits, that the worship
of the old gods subsisted among the nomadic tribes and
in various of the more remote parts of IrLn. Mazda-
ism was never the generally accepted faith of all the
Iranians. Not before the SLsLnids was it the only
tolerated religion of the State, and even under the
Achaemenids it may have been divided into different
sects. (For a description of the Zarathustrian religion,
see Z O RO A S T RI A NI S M. )
Like the religion of the Hebrews, the national religion
of the Aryans of IrLn, with its tendency to monotheism,
*. Art and ideas, its vague personification of ethical
and powers of nature, its sober
and generally prosaic character, was
not fitted to create orhevelop a-national art. Its cult
required no large and splendid temples, but only some
small and simple places of worship and altars in the
open air. The only image of the deity we know of is
the human figure in the winged circle, which is fre-
quently seen hovering about the king’s head, and
is commonly thought to represent Auramazda or his
fravaii, but may as well be meant for thefrazuii of
the king himself. Even this is borrowed from the
Assyrians, who themselves had imitated it from the
Egyptians. The statues of the goddess AnLhita. which,
as BErGssos (frg. 16) tells us, were erected by Arta-
xerxes Mnemon at Babylon, Susa, and Ekbatana. and
to which a passage of her Yasht seems to allude, were
doubtless of foreign origin, as (it is all bnt certain)
was the new cult and even the goddess herself, in spite
of her pure lranian name. Nevertheless, it cannot be
said that Persian architecture and sculpture have been
borrowed or even imitated from their western neighbours,
for they have indeed a character of its own. It is called
eclectic by high authorities, and in a certain sense i t is.
But it is not entirely deficient in originality. The able
artists who planned and adorned the admirable palaces
of Persepolis and Susa were mostly inspired by Assyro-
Babylonian models, and they assimilated also not a few
Egyptian motives ; but, perhaps under the influence of
what they had learned from Greek art in Asia Minor,
they created a new style of building and sculpture
which, by its elegance and taste, its boldness and
finish, surpasses all oriental art in antiquity. It has
been suggested that only Greeks, either captives or
adventurers, could have done this, and that no Persians,
tillers of the soil and warriors as they were, could ever
have produced works of art of such excellence. This
may be true in a measure. Whilst they may have had
Greeks as technical advisers, and even as craftsmen of a
higher class. i t is improbable that a Greek would have
conceived a plan of building so far different from his
own standard of beauty, that, notwithstanding all its
merits and charm, it must have seemed to him only
adapted to the taste of barbarians. At any rate,
Persian art is an artificial growth; it is a hot-house
plant. It WRS invented only by the king’s command,
and lived only by the king’s grace; therefore it did
not develop. In two centuries it was not improved, but
gradually declined. With the Achzmenids it rose, and
with them it disappears.
What is true of Persian art and architecture may also
be said to a certain extent of their civilisation in general.
9. Civilisation, The Medes led the way. and the
Persians. for a long time their vassals.
Y
followed, not only imitating the Median equipment,
but adopting also the organisation Cyaxares had given
to the army and (we may be sure) much more that was
new to them before, and that was borrowed by the
Medes from the older nations they had conquered.
3666
 PERSIA
Not that the Medo-Persians, before they came into
contact with a more refined culture, had been an un-
civilised nation. As Aryans proud of their Aryan
descent, feeling their superiority to the aborigines whom
they brought under their rule, they were a young,
healthy, vigorous people, chivalrous and valiant,
generous even to their enemies, though severe and even
cruel to rebels and traitors. Their manners, while
still unspoiled by opulence and luxury, were simple,
except that they freely indulged in spirituous liquors.
They hated nothing more than lying, and their given
word was held sacred even where others proved false.
But, as Herodotus tells us, they were prone to imitate
strangers and to adopt foreign customs. The Medes
inherited, with the empire of the Assyrians, their ancient
civilisation. The Persians, after the conquest of S u a ,
found themselves in the capital of a still more ancient
monarchy, known for its love of splendour and rich
attire, and could hardly escape its influence. Then
came the invasion nf Babylonia, of Lydia and the
Greek cities of Asia Minor, of Egypt. This led to the
awakening of slumbering powers, but also, and perhaps
in a greater degree, to moral degeneration. In marry-
ing their nearest relations the Achaemenids of the
younger branch followed the example of the Egyptians.
for if the next-of-kin marriage (bva2fvaddta),mentioned
in the Avesta, was in its origin a n Iranian institution, it
was certainly restricted to the second degree of kinship,
and only meant to keep the Aryan blood pure. From
the Greeks the Persians learnt other sexual aberrations ;
and their court, where the heads of the first families
were expected to appear regularly, and where even the
young nobles were educated, soon became depraved by
the bad consequences of harem life, by the arrogance
of the eunuchs, and by the intrigues of foreign favourites
and ambitious politicians.
For the chronology of the Median empire we are
dependent entirely on Herodotus and Ctesias, though
Chronology. some synchronisms with Assyrian
history may help us in a few cases.
Ctesias is not to be trusted ; his list of Median kings
and the more than three centuries assigned by him as
the total duration of their reigns, are equally fantastic.
The computation of Herodotus is better, but also
partly artificial. The reigns of 22, 40, and 35 years he
assigns to Phraortes, Cyaxares, and Astyages may be
nearly correct ; but the 53 years for Dei’oces serve only
to fill up the round number of 150. The date of 6 4 7
B. c. for the beginning of Phraortes’ reign corresponds
with the date of the subjection of Babylon by ASur-
bani-pal, and the troubled state of the Assyrian empire
during the gigantic struggle against a mighty confedera-
tion was indeed very favourable to the founding of some
central power among the chieftains of Media Though
victorious over its rebellious vassals and afterwards over
Elam, its hereditaryfoe, Assyria seems to have exhausted
its own powers in those wars and to have rapidly
declined during ASur-bani-pal’s last years. Under the
Sargonids who preceded him, Media appears still to
have bern divided into small principalities. It cannot
have been a monarchy before 647 ; but this may be the
date of its foundation.
For the chronology of the Persian empire we have
the Canon of Ptolemy, which is certainly to be trusted,
the Babylonian contract tablets dated under the reigns
of the Persian kings, and the synchronisms of Greek
history.
See C HRONOLOGY 4 25 Table iii. Best edition of Ptolemy’s
Canon in Wachsmu;h: E k . in das Stud. d. alt. Gesch., 305f:
Cp also Ed. Meyer, Forschungen P. alt. Gesch. ii., ch. 6,
Chron. Forschungen, 436fi
W e now give a short survey of the history of the
Median and Persian empires.
According to Herodotus the Median tribes, living in
a kind of anarchy and constantly quarrelling, but
wishing to stop these everlasting raids and robberics,
and to unite against the common foe, chose a king
3667
PERSIA
DeYoces, the son of Phraortes, who fixed his residence
in Ecbatana and held a regular court.
The name Deioces appears in Sargon’s Annals as Dayaukku
a Saknu or governor of Man, who with KusP th;
11. =Story : Urartian platted against Ullusun, the king of
Deioces. Man and vassal of the Assyrians but was led
captive by Sargon with his whol; family and
brought to Hamate (Hamath in Syria?). It is clear that this
Mannrean con5pirator, who was deported by the Assyrian king,
cannot he the king who founded the Median empire.
Elsewhere a Bit-Dayaukku is mentioned in south-
western Media, near Ellip. This Dayaukku, after
whose house the Assyrians called his country, as e.g.,
they called Israel Bit-Humri and southern Chaldea or
Sealand Bit-Yakin, must have been the head of a
princely or royal house of some importance, unless
Duhyauka (as the Iranian form would be) were only a
general title. corresponding to the Avesta dahvyumu.
and meaning ‘ the lord of the land ’ (der Landesherr),
as the present author suggested in his Bu6. -Ass. Gesch.
263, n. 3. Glorified by popular tradition, this Dahyauka
(he may have been the head of a dynasty or the chosen
+~y~pLsv of the Median tribes) grew into the founder of an
empire, the Deiokes of Herodotus. The real founder of
the monarchy, however, can have been only Phraortes,
though a series of leading chieftains presiding over a
confederation of tribes may have preceded him for even
a much longer time than the fifty-three years assigned
to Deiokes by Herodotus. However inviting it might
be to regard the list of Median kings before Astyages,
given by Ctesias, as comprising the names of such
leading chieftains, the idea must be rejected, as the
whole list is apparently a product of Ctesias’ fancy,
invented only to contradict Herodotus.
Phraortes (FyuvartiS, cp the Avesta fravarlta, con-
fessor.’ which is onlv etvmolocicallv connected with
fruvaSi, ‘ guardian spirit ’) is said to
la’Phraortesy have first subjugated Persia and after-
647-626. wards. little~~, bv little. nearlv the whole
I
of Asia. At last, however, the Assyrian poGer, though
already on its decline, proved too strong for him. An
expedition against a king of A S:,,, whom Berossos calls
Saracos, was unsuccessful, and Phraortes himself suc-
cumbed. W e may accept these statements as historical,
though admitting that there is some exaggeration in
what is told of Phraortes’ conquests, and though we
cannot explain why Sardanapalus (ASur-bHni-pal) is
called Saracus. For it is this king only who can be
meant. The subjugation of Persia most probably falls
in the reign of Teispes (Cispi:)-who is the first Persian
ruler, called by Cyrus the Great ‘ King of AnSan ’-or a
short time earlier. Elam, to which AnSan certainly
belonged, had just been annihilated by ASur-bEni-pal,
and was bereft of all its old splendour and power ; it
therefore fell an easy prey to a young and valiant nation
like the Persians, who, though unable to resist the
Median conqueror, may have striven to extend their
power, as a compensation for the loss of their independ-
ence. They found an opportunity to do so in the
year 6 2 5 B .c., when at the same time Media was
defeated by Assyria and lost its king, ASur-bani-pal
died, and Babylon under Nabopolassar threw off the
yoke of ASSur, so that none of the three neighbouring
powers could prevent the Persians from penetrating into
the very heart of Elam. It is understood that a large
part of Elan1 may have remained independent for many
years afterwards.
J.er.4935-38, where the fall of Elam is rophesied and
which the redactor ascribes to Jeremiah as eeing spokk by
him about 597 B.c., cannot refer to this first invasion of the
Persians at least if the date is accurate. Twelve years later
Ezekiel i 3 2 q ) speaks of Elam as having already descended
into Sheol. [On these passages see PROPHET.] Is.226, re-
garded by some scholars (PraSek. and others) as belonging
to this time, is much older and dates from the time of Sen-
nacherih and Hezekiah. Forty years later Cyrus the Great
was master of the whole country.
Phraortes’ son and successor Cyaxares (Uuakiriutara)
3668
 PERSIA
saw :it once why his father, though victorious in his
13. Cyaxares, struggle with the rude and semi-
barbarous tribes of Iran, was over-
624-686.
come by the veteran-warriors of such a
military state as Assyria. His army was, in fact, deficient
in training and organisation. Wishing to avenge his
father, Cyaxares set himself to work, divided his troops
into lancers, archers, and horsemen, and fortified his
capital Ecbatana (Hagmatana, ‘ the place of gathering ’).
Then, feeling stronger, he renewed his attack, defeated
the Assyrians in a pitched battle, and invested Nineveh.
Soon, however, he had to raise the siege. A wild
horde of those northern nomads, included by the Greeks
under the common name of Scythians and called by
the Persians Saka, had invaded Media, and Cyaxares
had to hurry home.
Whether this invasion was connected with that other
more terrible irruption of Scythians by which western
Asia was devastated, is not certain. The Scythians
with whom Cyaxares had to deal probably came from
the NE. of the Caspian Sea, and, though of the same
kin as the Iranians, were savage or at least barbarous
nomads. They did not reign in Media, for Cyaxares
was neither dethroned nor banished by them. They
seem, however, to have domineered over the peaceful
householders, and as a kind of Janissaries or Mamelukes
to have even held the court in check. It is said that
the king got rid of them by killing their chiefs at a
banquet, after having made them drunk. It is an old
and very common folk-tale, and is only the popular
substitute for the historical fact that such a gang of
barbarians, rendered careless by an easy victory, and
enervated by indulging too freely in all the unwonted
luxuries of civilised life, could not but be overpowered
at last by the shrewd policy and the superior tactics
of a real king. It seems that Cyaxares did not
chase the Saka, but that they submitted to him and
joined his army. In a few years this result was
obtained. The whole drama was played between the
first and second expeditions to Assyria. The second
ended in the fall of Nineveh (607 or 606 B .c.). the
first, preceded by the military reform, cannot have
happened much earlier than 620 B. c., 625 or 624 being
the year of the accession of Cyaxares. If Herodotus is
right in stating that the Scythians ruled Asia for twenty-
eight years, this cannot refer to Media, where they did
not even rule.
Cyaxares now felt able to renew his attack on
Assyria, which, though no more than a shadow of
what it was before, still hindered the Medes in extending
their empire to the NW. This time he was successful
and destroyed Nineveh about 607-606 B.C. For it
was to Cyaxares, not to Astyages, as Berossos and
those who depend on him have it, that the fall
of the old imperial city was due. It is difficult to
decide whether Nabopolassar and his Babylonians
joined the Medes as allies against the common foe.
Both Ctesias and Berossos tell us so, and even without
their testimony we should expect it. Allies they were,
and the prince royal of Babylon was married to
Cyaxares’ daughter. The rising power of the Chaldeans
was not to be neglected, and on the other side it was
their interest to take an active part in the proceedings
against a dynasty which, though paralysed, always
claimed the suzerainty over Babylonia. If Herodotus ,.........Of
does not mention the Chaldeans, he may have followed
a one-sided Medo-Persian tradition. Lastly, it may be
doubted whether Media would have left the Chaldeans
in undistiirbed possession of all the southern and south-
western provinces of the Assyrian monarchy, which
Nabopolassar’s great son not only maintained, hut
extended, if they had remained inactive in this final
struggle for the hegemony of Western Asia. At any
rate, Media played the principal part, and it would
now direct its victorious arms against Armenia, Cappa-
docia, and the rich and mighty kingdom of the Lydians.
3669
PERSIA
The Lydian frontier, however, was destined to be the
limit of the Median conquests. After five years of
fighting the war was still undecided, and both parties
seem to have been rather tired of it. At least, when,
on 28th May 585, a great battle, probably near the
Halys, was interrupted by a total eclipse of the sun-
the same that Thales the Milesian is said to have pre-
dicted-they accepted it as a divine warning and ceased
all hostilities. Syennesis of Cilicia, probably chosen
by Lydia. and Nebuchadrezzar, erroneously called
Labynetus by Herodotus, chosen by Media, acted as
arbiters, and peace was concluded by their mediation.
Astyages, who seems in the meantime to have ascended
the throne, since Phraortes is said to have died in the
year of the battle, married the daughter of Alyattes, the
king of Lydia.
Astyages (Is’tuvegu in the Nab. Cyr. Annals, cp
Ctesias’ Astvicras) is called hv the Greeks (Herod..
I -
&ch. Pers. 76if. ) a son of Phraortes;
14‘ *styage’’ Since, however, he is.called by the Baby-
684-660’
lonians kine of the Ummanmanda-
Y
which, whatever it may mean, cannot have indicated the
Medes, but rather (probably) the Scythians, as Cyrus is
said to have slain the numerous Ummanmanda with his
few troops-since moreover the rebels, who, in the reign
of Darius, rose in Media and Sagartia do not call them-
selves sons of Astyages, but pretend to belong to the
family of Cyaxares, Winckler (Unters. z. a&. Gesch.
124f.) suggests, that Astyages was neither the son
nor the lawful successor of Phraortes, but revived the
Scythian supremacy in Media. It cannot be denied that
this hypothesis is very alluring. T o the arguments of
Winckler may he added, that Cyrus himself, in his
cylinder, glories in having defeated the Guti, the
nomads of Mesopotamia, and the widespread Umman-
manda. the nomads of Iran, so that he himself seems
to have regarded his conquest of Media as the liberation
of that country from the yoke of a usurper. The man
who delivered the greater part of the army of Astyages
into the hands of Cyrus, Harpagus, belonged to the
royal family. Finally, the name of Astyages has no
Iranian sound, and is altogether unlike those of his
predecessors. Be this as it may, Astyages’ reign seems
not to have been a glorious one. The only thing we
know of it is, that he encroached on the dominions of
Babylonia, then weakened by internal troubles and by
the government of a mere antiquary, and placed a
garrison in Harran, which the Chaldean kings regarded
as belonging to their empire. As soon, however, as the
Persians under Cyrns revolted, the Ummanmanda from
all parts of the empire were ordered home to reinforce
the army. Astyages may at the outset have defeated
the Persians, and even have chased them as far as
Pasargadze ; we could believe it, if it were not Ctesias
who told it. It is certain, however, that Astyages’ own
troops gave him up to the enemy, and that the man who
betrayed him was Harpagus, whom Cyrus afterwards
rewarded by bestowing on him an all but royal dignity
in Asia Minor. In this the Babylonian account and
Herodotus agree : they are mutually complementary.
The history of the Median empire, very little of
which unfortunately is known, is interesting as the
16. significance first attempt of an Aryan or Indo-
European people to found a great
.e and conquering monarchy. But it
W l l ‘ p I O .
was not much more than an attempt.
In itself, the Median empire had no such great import-
ance. Compared with the Assyrian empire which
preceded, or with the Persian which followed it, it seems
rather insignificant. It did not supplant the Assyrians,
for this had been done already by the Chaldeans.
All it could do, and this only after having failed at first
and with the aid of the king of Babylon, was, to give
the death-blow to the dying capital of the old empire,
and to appropriate a part of the booty It was un-
able to conquer Lydia and felt ob1 ged to respect the
3670
 PERSIA
still mighty dynasty of Nabopolassar. Still, what it
achieved was by no means contemptible. It liberated
Iran from the Semitic suzerainty; it united the ever
quarrelling tribes under a central power ; it laid the
foundations of a higher civilisation, and so paved the
way for that Persian empire, which in a short time
equalled, if it did not outrival, the once supreme
monarchies of Babylon and Assyria.
With the title king of ‘ A d a n and Parsfi,’ Cyrus, a
descendant of Achsemenes (HnkhdmnniS),ascended the
16. Cyrus. throne of the empire. This does not mean
that a new monarchy, the Persian, sup-
planted the Median, but rather that there was a change
of dynasty, by which the Median was developed into a
Medo-Persian empire, differingfrom theformeronlyin this,
that the Persian branch, hitherto subject, was henceforth
uppermost. The Greeks make scarcely any difference
between Medes and Persians, and the latter ever re-
garded the Medes as their nearest kin, and, provided
they respected the Persian supremacy, treated them
with marked distinction, and entrusted them with high
offices and honours.
Cyrus (0.Pers. KZ‘ruSin the nominative, Bab. K u r d )
was certainly of royal descent.
When Herodotus makes him the son of a private Persian
noble married to the daughter of Astyages, and Ctesias the
son of a common herdsman, they only repeat two different
traditions of a popular story, such as Orientals especially-and
not only they-like to tell about the origin of great monarchs
and conquerors, who, from an obscure and modest position,
unexpectedly rose to large power and world-wide renown. (See
CVRUS, I I, to which must be added, that Darius calls Hakh2-
manis thefather of Cyrus’s great- grandfather Cispis, who is
therefore not merely his descendant ; he always distinguishes
hetweenputru, ‘son,’ and tuumbyu, ‘ of the family, descendant
of.’)
After having taken Ecbatana, the first care of Cyrus
should have been to secure his supremacy over the
Iranian provinces of the Median dominion. Before he
could bring this to an end, however, he was compelled to
wait for a more convenient season, since Crcesus, the king
of the Lydians, had invaded Cappadocia and devastated
certain cities which, by the treaty between Alyattes and
Astyages, belonged to the Medes. Cyrus hurried to
the frontier, and a battle was fought in the district of
Pteria, near Sinope, which, according to Herodotus,
remained undecided. Crcesus, however, seeing that
the Persian army exceeded his own in number. thought
it wiser to retreat, and to wait till the auxiliary troops
of his allies, on which he reckoned, should have arrived.
But he made the mistake of disdaining his enemy, and
disbanded his army, feeling sure that Cyrus would not
venture to march upon Sardis. This proved a fatal
error. The Persian army advanced with great speed,
invested the capital, and took it within a fortnight.
Crcesus was taken prisoner, but not put to death by
the conqueror, who treated him kindly, and even
assigned him a city for his living.
The well-known narrative of Herodotus and Xanthns ahont
the pyre on which Crcesus was to be burned with some of his
subjects, but from which he was released by Cyrus’s curiosity
and the favour of the gods, cannot be regarded as history.
Ctesias, though not partial to Cyrus, knows nothing of it, but
ascribes the liberation of Crcesus to another miracle.
Cyrus being now master of Lydia, returned to his
country, where much had still to be done before the
whole of IrZn had submitted to his rule. The conquest
of the Ionian cities, which had refused to accept his
suzerainty instead of that of the Lydians, and the sub-
jugation of the valorous Lydians, he left to his generals,
principally to Harpagns. Even the government of
Lydia, where there was a single and last revolt, was safe
in their hands.
It was only (seven or eight years after the fall of
Sardis) in 539 that Cyrus could venture to grapple with
the power which even Cyaxares had not dared to
assail-Babylon. The overthrow of this monarchy
and the capture of the imperial city is related elsewhere
(see D ARIUS , z ; B ABYLONIA , 5 69). It brought Cyrus
367 I
PERSIA
to the acme of his power, and made it easy for him to
extend it to the shores of the Mediterranean S. of Asia
Minor. There is no record of any serious resistance on
the part of the nations subject to Babylon ; and certainly
the Phoenician cities, though so often rebellious against
Egypt, Assyria, and Babylonia, seem to have borne the
light yoke of the Persians without reluctance.
On Cyrus’s relations to the Hebrews see CYRUS,
55 3-6.
Next to nothing is known about Cyrus’s doings after
the fall of Babylon in 538. It appears that he did not
make it his residence, but installed his son Cambyses a s
viceroy, preferring to live at Susa, and especially perhaps
at his own Persian capital Pasargadz, which he had
built and adorned out of the plunder of Ecbatana.
Probably he was for most of the time engaged in
one or another military expedition. He died on the
battlefield about 529, nobody knows where, a n d . the
varions sources mention different names for the remote
and barbarous tribe which at last defeated and killed
him. Whether his tomb at Pasargidse (Murghdb)was
only a mausoleum erected by his son to his memory,
or whether it really contained his last remains, it is
difficult to say.
Cyrns was neither the bloodthirsty tyrant he is represented
in some stories current among the Greeks nor the ideal ruler of
Xenophon’s Cyro$edia. It may be eve; doubted whether he
was a great ruler, as he seems not to have done much for the
organisation of his colossal empire. But that he broke with the
bated Assyro-Babylonian system, respected every nationality,
allowed every people to retain its own religion, laws, customs,
language in its own home, proves him to have been a man of
large views and, as such, a real statesman, highminded and
generous an Aryan of the Aryans. At any rate he was a
great coAmander, and, if we may believe Herodatus, also a
good tactician, one of those military geniuses who are born,
not made.
Cambyses (KuGbujiya, or perhaps better Kubujiya),
the son of Cyrus and Kassandana (also of Achzemenian
l?.Cambyses. descent), followed his father as ruler of the
empire, and devoted the first four years
of his reign to the preparation of an expedition against
Egypt, which, as long as it was independent, threatened
his south-western frontier. Polycrates of Samos, the kings
of Cyprus, and the Phenician cities were his allies, and
with their help he gathered a large fleet, commanded by
the Halicarnassian Phanes, who, till then in Egyptian
service, had gone over to him. Before he left Persia,
Cambyses secretly killed his own brother Bardiya, called
Smerdis by the Greeks, who therefore, according to an
ingenious remark of Noldeke, cannot have been the
governor of the eastern provinces of IrBn, as Ctesias
pretends. Then he put himself at the head of his
army, entered Egypt, defeated the Egyptian army near
Pelusium, and was soon the lord of the whole country.
The Egyptian priests represented him to Herodotus as
a brutal and cruel tyrant, an epileptic, unable to com-
mand his passions, as rude to his own wife and kin as
to others, a scoffer, who laughed at the images of Ptah
in Memphis, burned the mummy of Amasis, and with
impious hand killed the sacred Apis. On the contrary,
genuine Egyptian monuments depict him as a pious
worshipper of those same gods, and a high priest of Sais
praises him as the protector of his cult. The official repre-
sentation on one side, popular gossip, inspired by national
hate, on the other,-neither the one nor the other is
to be trusted. But we may be sure that Cambyses’
action in Egypt was unwise and impolitic, and that he
could not control his violent passions. Certain it is,
that even at home he was not popular. His snccessor
Darius states that as soon as the king had left his
country a rebellious spirit showed itself in all the
provinces, Persia and Media not excepted. At last a
Mag& called Gaumata (Gometes, Justin), who knew
of the mmder of Bardiya, and indeed may have per-
petrated it himself, put forth a claim to be the real
Smerdis, and was speedily acknowledged as such by
the whole empire. Those who doubted kept silent,
for they knew that their life was in danger, the Magian
3672
 PERSIA
having killed every one to whom the secret was known.
'That he really reigned is proved by Babylonian contract
tables dated from the first year of Barziya. In the
meantime Cambyses was hurrying home, though not yet
aware of all that had happened ; but when the terrible
news reached him in Syria, he killed himself.
Upon this a member of a side-branch of the
Achanenids, named Darius (DdmayuvauC), son of
Hystaspes ( ViStdspu), aided by six other re-
'*' Darius' presentatives of the highest Persian nobility,
succeeded in murdering the false Smerdis, and ascended
the throne (522). (Cp D a ~ r u s . ) Darius states in his
inscription at Behistun, that he restored the temples the
Mage had destroyed and set right everything else that the
usurper had altered ; though it is not clear what kind of
religious and social reforms ' Smerdis ' had introduced.
This, however, was only a first step. An arduous task
awaited the young king. A spirit of rebellion was fer-
menting through the whole empire. ' There was much
lying in the land.' In nearly every province, except those
of western Asia, a pretender rose, and had to be put down.
The history of these struggles and of the pacification of
the empire cannot be narrated here in detail. Nor can
we follow Darius in his useless and unsuccessful ex-
pedition against the Scythians, his crushing of the
Ionian revolt, and his war with Greece ; all this rather
belongs to the history of Greece than to that of Persia.
Darius was not so great a general as Cyrus, but he was
a greater king. He defined the rights and duties of the
Satraps (Khfuthrupdvan,imidnx), the governors of the
provinces, who were allowed a large autonomy, but
were controlled by the 'eye of the king,' the first
counsellor of the realm or other high officials, and,
though themselves commanders of an army corps, were
held in check by the garrisons of the fortresses, im-
mediately under the king's command. To keep the
reins of government in the hands of the central power,
Darius constructed a net of highways and instituted a
regular system of posts. He substituted a new and
better coinage for that of the Lydians, which was more
primitive; did his best to promote navigation and
commerce-for example, by digging a canal between
the Nile and the Red Sea. Instead of the compulsory
presents which had in the olden time been extorted
from the population, he assigned taxes for each province.
The Persian nobles sneered at this and called the king
a chaffer ( K ~ T ~ X O;S )it seemed to them undignified,
just as the medimal knights would have thought it ; but
the people and certainly the state profited by it. Darius
did not enlarge the empire of Cyrus ; but he maintained
it under great difficulties, and made it into an organised
state. He could not indeed undo the mischief wrought
in Egypt by Cambyses ; his wise policy and accumulated
favours could not withhold it from revolting; but
perhaps if he had lived he would have recovered
possession of it. The character of Darius stands very
high; even the Greeks, whose national feelings he
severely hurt, spoke of him with respect. And it was
no vain boast when he claimed to have been neither a
liar nor a despot, but to have ruled according to the law.
Unhappily, the son who succeeded Darius on the
throne was in all points his inferior-Xerxes (KhSuydrJd),
19. Xerxes. who reigned from 48 5-464. He is the king
called AhaSwei-oS in the book of Esther (cp
AHASUERUS). With him the decline of the monarchy
began, and it was only the solid foundation Darius I.
Rad given it that held it together for so long a time.
Of Persian history after Darius we know nothing
except from foreign, and especially Greek, sources.
Some of his successors record in their inscriptions the
buildings they erected, either for their own use or in
honour of the gods, and Xerxes, like his father, gives
a list of the nations he ruled; but upon the events
of their reign they are silent. Their struggles with the
Greeks, who more than once withstood them bravely, and
whom they never were able to subjugate, belong to the
3673
PERSIA
most interesting parts of ancient oriental history, hut do
not fall within the scope of the present work. Perhaps
the Greeks, if they had been less divided by internal dis-
sensions and bad not had so many traitors in their ranks,
disappointed in their ambition and greedy for money,
might have succeeded in wresting from the Persians
at least the supremacy of Asia Minor. What we gather
from classic writers as to the affairs of the Persian court
is a sad history of alternate weakness and cruelty, cor-
ruption, murders, intrigues, and broken faith.
vainglorious and at the same time cowardly Xerxes was
The
succeeded by Artaxerxes (AmtukhSuthru)I., of the Long
Hand, under whose reign Nehemiah his cupbearer and
Ezra the scribe were allowed to go to Jerusalem to help
their fellow-countrymen in their miserable state (cp
A RTAXERXES ). He was not a bad. but a very weak
man, governed by courtiers and women.
We may $ass over the short reign of Xerxes II., who
was murdered like his namesake. His successor was
Darius II., surnamed Nothus, who left
II.20. Darius
Nothus and the supreme power in the hands of his
his successor'8~cruel and troublesome sister and con-
sort Panisatis. Perhaus if she had
succeeded, after her husgand's death, in putting the
sceptre in the hands of her beloved son, the ambitious
but energetic and able Cyrus, the fate of the empire
might have been different. But Artaxerxes II., surnamed
Mnemon, ascended the throne, and during the long
reign (404-3j8) of this mild and friendly but lazy
monarch the power of Persia rapidly declined. It was
he who suffered the foreign semi-idolatrous cult of the
goddess called AnBhita by the Iranians to be introduced
even in Media and Persia. Under his son and suc-
cessor Ochns ( VuhuRa),who as king adopted the name
Artaxerxes III., the monarchy seemed to revive. Cruel,
harsh, mmdrrous, indifferent as to the means which he
selected to realise his plans, he was intensely hated.
By his energy he smothered every revolt, humiliated
the Egyptians (whom he deeply offended by ridiculing
and persecuting their religion), the Phoenicians, and
probablyalso the Jews (cp I SAIAH ii., $5 9, 11, ZI), and
really restored for the time the Persian supremacy. Just,
however, when the Macedonian power was rising, and
with it the greatest danger that ever threatened the
empire, Artaxerxes was murdered by Bagoas, an
Egyptian eunuch, the same who pacified J u d z a in 348,
and (when Johanan the high priest had killed his
brother Jesus) entered the temple to the great offence
of the pious (JOs. Ant. xi. 71,5 297 ; cp ISRAEL, 5 66).
Bagoas placed on the throne Arses ; but when the king
tried to get rid of his patron, Bagoas poisoned him.
Bagoas then gave the crown to a great-grandson of
Darius II., Darius surnamed Codomannus, the worst
choice he could well have made. Only a Cyrus,
perhaps not even a Darius Hystaspis, might have
held his own against the terrible onslaught and the
tactics of such a general as Alexander the Great, and so
saved the empire. Here, however, was a king no better
thanxerxes, valiant perhaps inordinaryfights, but quickly
confused in great emergencies, and in no wise equal to
the gigantic task imposed on his weak shoulders. His
tragic fate cannot make us blind to his great faults ; but
at the same time we cannot but feel disgusted at the
burning of Persepolis by the conqueror. The flames
which devoured the graceful buildings of the imperial
city were to announce to the world that the lance of the
Persian, which formerly reached so far, now lay broken
for evef.
The best surveys of Medo-Persian history down to the time of
Alexander are those of Th. Noldeke (art. 'Persia,' Pt. i. in EBP)
[reprinted with emendations and ad-
21. Bibliography. ditions in Aufiufze SNY pers. Gesch. 1%
18841) and F. Justi (' Geschichte I r a q
in GY. d. +an. PhiZoZogie, 2 3-4 1900); c his ' Gesch. d. alt.
Persiens' in Oncken's AG 1 I 4. F. Spiegef Eran. AltrrNrrmzs-
Run& 2, Rk.5, pp. 236-632,Masp. 3, and above all E. Meyer's
GA 1-3, 1884-1991 (cp Entsteh. and Forschungen s. dt. Gesch. 2
437-511 IChronologyl), should also he consulted. Interesting
3674
 PERSIS
monographs are (among others) :- V. Floigl Cyma und Herodot
(1881). J.V. PraIek, Media u. a!. Hays As Kyaxares, 1 8 p ;
Forschungen z. Gesch. a!. Alterfh. 1. Kambyses u. $. Ueber-
lieferung ’ Leipz. 1897,3, ‘Z. Chronologie d. Kyros ‘ Z. der
BehiHtunkchrift,’ 1, Leipz. 1900, ‘ Die ersten Jahre dareios des
Hystaspiden,’ u.s.w., in Beifricgc z. a&. Gesch., ed. by C. F.
Lehmann, i., 1 ~ 6 . 5 0 . Th. A. Lincke’s endeavour to re.
habilitate Cambyses in Z u r Losung der Kam6ysesfiqe (1891)
is ingenious but not convincing.
The 0. Pers. cuneiform inscriptions first deciphered by Sir
H. Rawliuson, Lassen, and Benfey havebeen satisfactorily edited
by Fr. Spiegel, APK, 1881P) ; more recently by Weissbach and
Bang (1893). C p Weissbach, Die Achamenideninschnhriften
zweifer A r t (~Sgo), and Bezold and Haupt, Die Ach. inschr.
BahyZon. text (1882).
For the bibliography of Zoroastrianism, see ZOROASTRIANISM,
and Tiele, Gesch. v. d. Godsdimst in de Oudhcid, 2, rgor.
F. B., 5 I ; C. P. T., 2-21.
PERSIS (rrfpcic [Ti. WH]), probably a deaconess,
commended for her labours in the Christian cause
(Roni. 1612).
PERUDA ( K ~ Y I Q ‘ separated ’ ; @aAoypa ,[L]).
T h e h’ne Pernda a group of ‘Solomon’s servants (see
special article) in ;he great post-exilic list (see E ZRA ii., 5 9); is also a didactic narrative ; but we cannot deny that a
Ezra 2 55 (RVmg. PEKIDA ; $&owpa [BA]) = Neh. 7 57 (N??B ;
E V P ERIDA; $ r p d a [BH], +ap. [A])=I Esd. 5 33 (AV PHARIRA, unpopular act of the king. A more authentic witness
RV PHARIDA, RVmg. P ERUDA ; +apIeli6a [BA]).
PESTILENCE. The different biblical terms for
pestilence having been considered elsewhere (see DIS-
Frequency. E A S E S ), we are able to confine our- army suffered greatly in z K. 1935 (=Is. 3i36)-a
selves here to historical and exegetical
details. The frequency of pestilences in ancient Pales-
tine is strikingly shown by the words of Gad, ‘ David’s
seer,’ to his king, ‘ Shall seven years of famine come to
thee in thy land ? or wilt thou flee three months before
thy foes? or shall there be three days‘ pestilence in thy
land?’ ( z S. 2413). There is no doubt a gradation in
the calamities specified. T o be three months a t the
mercy of a victorious foe, burning and spoiling in all
directions, was worse than even seven years of famine ; Assyrians,’ invaded Egypt and besieged Pelusium in the
and even three days’ pestilence of the most acute sort
would be enough to destroy or to weaken a large part
of the population of a city. The less severe calamity
would also be more frequent than those which were more
destructive. The fact remains, however, that famine,
desolation from war, and pestilence, were three well-
known terrors, and this is confirmed by I K. 837, Ezek.
51217,Am. 410,in which these threecalamitiesare again
given as parallel misfortunes.
The last of these passages (Am. 410)is historical@
very suggestive. EV renders ‘ I have sent among you the
pestilence after the manner of Egypt ’ (72;:
2. o;?:n) ; G. A. Smith, ‘ b y way of Egypt.’
’A pestilence ’ would be better. I t is a pestilence of a narrative as that in I S. 6 (see EMERODS).
bad type that is meant, just as in Is. 10266 the ‘rod
lifted up in the manner of Egypt ’ is a a divine judicial
act such as Egypt experienced.’ The NE. corner of
the Nile delta was justly regarded in antiquity a s the
home of the plague. G. A. Smith has well described
the conditions which favoured the outbreak of plague in
that district.
‘ T h e eastern mouth of the Nile then entered the sea at
Pelnsium, and supplied a great stretch of mingled salt and fresh
water under a high temperature [always accompanied by fevers,
as round the Gulf of Mexico]. T o the W. there is the swampy
Delta; and on the Asiatic side sandbills with only brackish
wells. Along the coast there appear to have been always a
number of lagoons, separated from the sea by low bars of sand,
and used a s salt-pans. In Greek and Roman times the largest
of these was known a s the Serbonian Bog or Marsh. ... In
Justinian’s time, the “ B o g ” was surrounded by communities of
salt-makers and fish-curers ; filthy villages of underfed and
imbecile people, who always had disease among them. The
extremes of temperature are excessive.’ 1
I n such a country plague must always have been
ready to break out, and the infection must often have
been brought by trading caravans to Palestine. This
illustrates, not only Am. 4 IO, but also a passage mistrans-
lated both in AV and in RV, owing to the influence of
the traditional prejudice of the Mosaic authorship of
1 HG 157. Cp Book oflsaiah, 1361.
3675
PESTILENCE
Deuteronomy. The threat which is dramatically attached
to the non-observance of the Deuteronomic law is that
Yahwk will bring upon Israel ’ all the diseases of Egypt
which thou wast (not ‘ art ’) afraid of’ (Dt. 2860).
It may be partly owing to the consequences of plagues
that we have so little historical evidence as to particular
outbreaksof pestilence in ancient Palestine.
3. OT
references. The references to plagues in Ex. 1 1 4
l 2 ~ 9 f . (the Tenth Plague), Nu. 1 1 3 3
(sickness following the quails), 25 18 26 I (plague through
Baal-peor), belong to a cycle of highly legendary didactic
narratives (see PLAGUES rrEN1). The story of the boils
in I S. 5 9-12 is also legendary: The hondur of the ark
of God had to be rescued ; the offenders against the
sanctity of Yahw&are naturally punished by pestilence,
and possibly would have been represented as so punished,
even had they dwelt in the N. of Palestine, and not in
a part which was closely connected with Egypt by the
avenues of commerce.2 The passage describing the
punishment of David’s numbering of the people ( 2 S. 24)
pestilence may have coincided chronologically with the
to a pestilence is the retrospective statement of Amos
(410). referring to N. Israel. Lastly, we have the
famous reference to a pestilence by which Sennacherib’s
reference which, in the light of literary and historical
criticism, is most probably altogether legendary.
It may be well to pause for a little on the Sennacherib
passage, because of the new tradition which has sprung
*. of up among critics, to the effect that the
Sennacherib’s main fact of 2 K. has received inde-
pendent confirmation from an Egyptian
pestilenre. source. Herodotus, indeed, says (2141)
that when Sennacherib, ‘king of the Arabians and
days of king Sethos, field-mice gnawed the quivers and
shield-handles of the invaders, who fled precipitately.
As Skinner puts the common theory-
‘Since the mouse was among the E y t i a n s a symbol of pes-
tilence we may infer that the basis o truth in the legend was
a deadly epidemic in the Assyrian camp ; and this is the form
of calamity which is naturally suggested by the terms of the
biblical narrative. T h e scene of the disaster is not indicated in
the OT record and there is no obstacle to the supposition that
it took place, a s in the Egyptian legend, in the plague-haunted
marshes of Pelusium’ (/sa. i.-zxxix., p. 275).
T o this view there are several strong objections.
(I) The mouse was not a symbol of pestilence; it is
unwise to attempt to prove this by such a late authority
as Horapollo (l50), and such an obscure and corrupt
, The story
of the field-mice is merely a mythological way of saying
that Horus. to whom the mouse was sacred, repelled
the foes of Egypt in an unaccountable way.3 (2)T h e
theory takes no account of the composite character of
the Hebrew story. Two narratives of Sennacherib’s
dealings with Hezekiah have been welded together.
According to the one (Is. 361-379), a report which Sen-
nacherib heard, whilestill at Lachish.‘caused himtomove
camp, and depart on his return to Nineveh ( ‘ Isa.’ SBOT
[Eng.], p. 49). According totheother (Is. 37gc-213336),
1 T h e text bas suffered in transmission (see EMERODS).
2 G.A.Sm. (HG 158J) supports the historicity of the narrative
by the considerations that Pbilistia was closely connected with
Egypt and that armies are specially liable to infection. T h e
Philisdnes, he thinks, were struck ‘while they were in camp
against Israel.’ If so, the tradition in I S. 5 seems to he not
quite accurate (see vu. 6, 9, IO).
3 Use was made of the essay of A. Lang on Apollo and the
Mouse in Custom and Myth by the present writer m his Introd.
io fsniah, 333. More recently, Meinhold has, with German
elaborateness, worked on the same lines (Die jes.-endhZungen,
Yes. 36-39 33-42). H e is not perfectly clear on the narrative of
I S. 5 A, but inclines to follow Klostermann. In the article
EMEIZODS, the investigation of the textual problems has been
carried further. Wellhausen’s treatment of the text of I S. 5 6
leaves much to be desired.
4 2 K. 19 8 (Is. 378) has been recast by the editor. See Is&’
SBOT(Eng.), Lc.
3676
 PESTLE
on the night after Isaiah had prophesied Sennacheribs
failure to enter Jerusalem, a destroying angel went out
and slew 185,000 warriors in the Assyrian camp. Both
narratives are very late, but the former (rumour), being
less didactic, is to be preferred to the latter (pestilence).
For the origin of the story of the pestilence,* see
H EZEKIAH , § 2 .
The prism-inscription of Sennacherib may also be
quoted against the historicity of the pestilence narrative.
If Hezekiah troubled himself to send a special messenger
with tribute to Nineveh, it is by no means likely that
Sennacherib had been compelled to return by a calamity
which almost destroyed his army, and would doubtless
be regarded by Hezekiah as a special act of God. On the
other hand, the contemporary history of Assyria confirms
the accuracy of the ' rumour ' narrative. In the follow-
ing year Sennacherib had as much as he could do in
counteracting the restless Chaldzan princes, and we can
well believe that the rumour which caused him to move
camp from Lachish was really concerned with the
machinations of these opponents. The assassination
of Sennacherib in the first narrative, too, is undoubtedly
historical. Not knowing of it, the second narrator was
obliged to represent the pestilence as a just punishment
of the enemy of YahwB.
Many writers have held that the sickness of Hezekiah,
referred to in z K. 20 (Is. 38). was the plague . - ; and
6. some, following Hitzig, have supposed
s ickness f o that it was a case of the same plague
Henekiah. as the Assyrian army is said to have
suffered from, which ' h a d got among the people
of the country, as sickness in the train of an army
usually does.' This view is at first sight plausible.
The compiler of the ' second (the pestilence) narrative '
certainly held it (cp ' Isa.' SBOT),and it is confirmed
by Is. 386, which implies that Jerusalem is in great
danger from the Assyrians. This, however, is, if recent
criticism may be followed, an error. The embassy of
Merodach Baladan must have preceded the Assyrian
invasion. It cannot have had any smaller motive than
the wish to organise a general resistance to Assyria (see
MERODACK-BALADAN).~
It is, however, by no means necessary to accept the
compiler's errangernent of his material, any more than
we always accept the arrangement of material in a
gospel. The idea of the writer of a K. 1 9 3 5 is that the
Assyrians who were attacked by the plague died sud-
denly. The boil (f@fn) of Hezekiah seems to have lasted
some little time, and need not have been a plague-boil.
There are various boil-diseases, sometimes called after
the respective cities where they are prevalent. That of
Hezekiah may, for instance, have been a malignant
carbuncle, for which (not less than for a plague-boil) a
poultice of figs would be an appropriate remedy.
Dr. Lauder Brunton" has been led to view the disease
as ' tonsilitis' from the similarity of some of the symptoms
described in the Song of Hezekiah (Is. 3810-20) with
those of some cases of quinsy. Unfortunately, the
connection of the Song with an event in the life of
Hezekiah is plainly a scribe's fiction, and the psalm, as
we may call it, should be grouped with other national
psalms of thanksgiving for deliverance. W e should
hardly think of discussing the symptoms of disease im-
plied in Ps. 6 30 and 88. T. K. C.
PESTLE ($!g), Prov. 27 22. See MORTAR.
PETER. See S IMON PETER.
PETER, THE EPISTLES OF. I Peter.-The so-
called first General Epistle of Peter is addressed to ' the
1 Gesenius has already explained this. It should be observed
that in Is. 3 7 3 6 the words 'that night' (see 2 K. 1935) are
omitted.
a Cp Che. Intr. Is 221 227. Marti Jesaia 265.
3 Sir Risdon Bennett,' iVl.b., Thk Disea&s of the BzW,
144.
30?7
PETER, THE EPISTLES O F
elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion in Pontus,
tialatia, Capadocia, Asia, and Bithynia' The hypo-
1, First Peter: thesis that the letter was written by
Simon Peter naturally carries with it the
its presumption that the persons addressed
were Jewish Christians, and the expression sojourners
of the dispersion ' (?rapenr&jpoLors Graonopiis, 1I ) lends it
some support. But ' sojourners ' (cp 2 r 1 ; Heb. 1113) is
probably employed figuratively of Christians in general
as earthly pilgrinis or strangers, and Weiss stands
almost alone in supporting the opinion that the writer
had in mind as his readers communities composed chiefly
of Jewish Christians. Apart from the fact that the
provinces referred to were the field of the Pauline
mission, and the improbability that there were separate
Jewish-Christian churches there, the epistle contains un-
mistakable indications that it was addressed to gentile
believers, to whom alone are applicable the references
to former practices and errors (11418 29f. 43f.). The
readers are represented as persons who had not seen
Jesus, who had been ' redeemed ' from a former ' vain
manner of life' and ' called out of darkness,' and who
as strangers and foreigners had a ' time of sojourn ' to
accomplish in the world, whilst their true fatherland was
heaven.
The epistle has been variously interpreted as to its
object. On the ground of l r z q and 512,it has been
2. object. maintained that the author, whether Peter
or another, wished to establish in the
churches of Asia Minor. which had been founded by
Paul, the authority of this apostle, so far as it could be
confirmed by the approval of the great 'pillar' of the
Jewish Christian community, and to show the essential
agreement of the two. This view has been to some
extent supported by a few scholars who believe that
Peter was the author of the epistle. T o the older
Tiibingen school the writing had no other object than
to mediate between the Pauline and Petrine factions in
the early church. Schwegler accordingly says of the
epistle that ' it is a n apology for Paulinism written by a
follower of Paul for the adherents of Peter-an apology
which was effected simply that an exposition of the
Pauline doctrine might be put into the mouth of Peter'
(Nachap. ZeitalLeter, 22). A testimony from Peter to
the orthodoxy of Paul was regarded from this point of
view as a very effective means of reconciling the
adherents of the two great teachers. If, however, such
were the object of the writer, it is to say the least sur-
prising that he did not make it more apparent and con-
spicuous. The passages referred to are too vague to
admit of any such special application, and nothing
seems to be farther from the writer's thought in general
than the Pauline and Petrine controversy, which he
stands far above and beyond. In 5 12, the 'grace of
God ' ( ~ L i p r vTOG OeoG) does not necessarily refer to the
Pauline 'gospel,' hut may be explained by 1 1 3 (the words
cis .4r urijrc, ' wherein ye stand,' are with doubtful pro-
prietyrendered in RV 'stand ye fast therein'). Without
a distinctive dogmatic purpose, the writer addresses him-
self zealously to the comfort, admonition, and encourage-
ment of his readers, who are assumed to be in need
of such an exhortation on account of the persecutions
which they are suffering for the sake of their Christian
profession (31216 4412f: 58-10). These persecutions
are represented as proceeding from gentiles, and the
writer's chief object is, as Lechler remarks, to im-
press upon his readers the indissoluble connection and
succession of suffering and glory in the life of the
believer as in that of Christ himself ( 1 1 1 221 318).
Naturally related to this purpose is the prominence
given to hope both expressly and indirectly (13 21 3 15
413 510).
If, however, the epistle shows distinctively neither a
dogmatic nor a ' mediating' purpose, it is not without
traces of the influence of Paul's theological ideas, and
may properly be classified with the deutero-Pauline litera-
3678
 PETER, THE EPISTLES OF
ture of the N T , which represents a weakened Paulinism,
3. Deutero- and may be regarded as denoting the transi-
tion from the thought of the great apostle
Pauline to that of the Fourth Gospel. Faith is made
prominent, as 'unto,' and ' the end of'
' salvation ' (159) ; but its distinctively Pauline contrast
with works is not expressed. The doctrine of atonement
as set forth by Paul underlies the writer's apprehension
of the death of Jesus, which he regards as ' fore-ordained
from the foundation of the world' ; but it is weakened in
the direction of an ' ethical ' significance (12 2 2 4 3 18 4 I).
The idea of substitution is scarcely expressed, and the
blood of Christ is conceived as having a purifying
efficacy. He suffered that he might ' bring us to God.'
Accordingly, the Pauline doctrine of justification does
not find distinctive expression, and the apostle's ter-
minology ( 6 t K a t o W 3 a t , 6rKatouivq) is avoided.
The writer's Christology is only partially disclosed by a few
intimations which show its general similarity to that of the
deutero-Pauline Epistles to the Hebrews and the Ephesians
'(3 zz 4 IT ; cp Eph. 120 Heb. 18 21). The legend of the descent
of Christ to the underworld (3 rg) appears to be a development
of Eph. 48-10. In thevague eschatology the prominent Pauline
features do not appear ; hut the idea of partaking of Christ's
sufferings and rejoicings 'at the revelation of his glory' (4 13) is
probablya reminiscence of Rom. S 17, ' w e spffer with [him]t h a t
we may also be glorified with [him]' ( u v p r r a u x o p e v i'va uvv-
6ocauBGpev).
The literary relations of the epistle to the N T literature
are many and unmistakable, though the question of
dependence is in some cases indeterminable. That the
author was familiar with several of the epistles of Paul,
and adopted to some extent their ideas and terminology
is generally conceded.
Weiss's contention that Paul borrowed from I Peter has few if
any supporters, and has been characterised as 'the most
desperate step taken by modern apologetics. The parallels
with Romans both in thought and phraseology leave no room
for doubt of dependence on that epistle. Especially is this true
of Rom. 12 1-13 14 :cp 1 1 4 with Rom. 12 z ( o v u m p a r l { e d a r not
elsewhere in NT); 4 IO^ with Roni. 12 3.8 (after the apprbpri.
ation of an idea from Rom. 12 13) ; 4 8 1 2 2 with Rom. 1 2 9 ; 3 g
with Rorn. 12 1 7 ; 2 13f: with Rom. 13 I ; 2 19 with Rom. 13 5
(6th uuvsQqurv) ; 2 I and 4 I 3 (reminiscences of Rom. 13 I Z ~ ;)
1 5 4 1 3 with R o m . 8 1 7 J ; 2 2 4 with Kom. B z e r e ; 3 3 s with
Rom. 2 1629 (KPVVT&, K P V ~ T ~ SI, v KPVTTG); 2 6 with Rom. 9 3 3
(citation from OT with Paul's deviations from the Septuagint).
Several accords with other epistles of Paul indicate the writer's
familiarity with Pauline ideas and forms of expression: cp 1 3 ,
z Cor. 1 3 ; 2 2 , I Cor. 3 2 . 2 4 8 I Cor. 3 16f.2 II Gal. 5 17 *
216, Gal. 5 1 3 ; 224, Gal.'313; 8 6 , Gal. 426:'37, ;Cor. 7 3 5 :
3 9 , I Thess. 5 15 : 4 3, Gal. 5 21 ; 5 14, I Cor. 16 20. The writer
employs a considerable number of terms 'specifically Pauline '
among which may he mentioned LTOK&AU$LS,; A m B e p L , &arm;,
&6&, K ~ A c ~ Khqpovopia,
v,
8 ~ ~ I v5 x ,p ~ u r i .
rarap.ri<~rv,mprj, y p i u p a r a , ovvri-
The plan and grammatica structure of the
epistle also are 'Pauline.
I Peter contains, in proportion to its length, a large
number of words not used elsewhere in the NT. T h e
4. Other writer's acquaintance with Mt., Lk., and
literary Acts is probable from 2 12 3 14 16 4 1 3 3 (cp
relations. Mt. 510-1216) ; 56 (cp Mt. 231z), 1103(Lk.
l O 2 4 ) , 1 1 3 (Lk. 1 2 3 5 ) , 112 (Acts 22), 1 1 7
(Acts 1 0 3 4 3 5 ) . The accords with Hebrews do not neces-
sarily show a literary relation of the two epistles. Those
with Ephesians have beeninvestigated in greatdetail with-
out a conclusion on which scholars can agree. Perhaps the
most that one is warranted in saying is contained in von
Soden's remark that so many related expressions,
thoughts, and interests indicate that both writers breathed
the same atmosphere, and that possibly the writer of
one of the epistles knew the work of the other. On
relation of James see J AMES [GENERAL EPISTLE].
The dependence of the epistle upon the letters of Paul,
and its Pauline tone, style, and doctrinal basis, indicate a
6. Not Petrine. writer who had made himself familiar
with that apostle's works, and was in
sympathy with his thought. The absence of the mystical
profundity of Paul and the softening of some of the
harder lines of his teaching as well as several striking
accords with Hebrews, show the writer to have been in
contact with the later Paulinism which marks the
transition to the Johannine theology. Distinct fore-
3679
shadowings of the ideas of the Fourth Gospel and the
epistles ascribed to John are indeed not wanting,
although there is no indication of the author's ac-
quaintance with these writings. Cp 1 2 3 with I Jn. 39;
122 with I J n . 3 3 ; 5 2 , Jn.10162116; 318, I J n . 3 7 ;
119,Jn. 129. These considerations render the Petrine
authorship of I Peter very improbable. I t is very
unlikely, besides, that Peter should have written at all to
the Pauline gentile churches in ilsia Minor. But if he
wrote this epistle to them after the death of Paul, as is
generally assumed by the advocates of the traditional
view, it is surprising that he should not have mentioned
to them their revered teacher. Apart from the address
there is nothing in the internal character of the epistle
to indicate its Petrine authorship. An independent
type of doctrine which can with propriety be called
Petrine is wanting.
There is no trace of the questions mooted in the
-
apostolic age. Whilst the writer shows some contact
with the Gospel-literature, there is
6. Not of
apostolic age. no indication of the fresh and vivid
recollections of an eye-witness of the
life of Jesus, and the conspicuous- ideas of Jesus'
preaching, the kingdom of God, eternal life, the Son of
Man, repentance. and the Son of God, find no expres-
sion. The author's conception of faith is unknown to
the synoptics. The goal is not the synoptic 'eternal
life ' (&h aldvtos), but the Pauline ' glory ' (86,fa). 'The
sympathetic student of Paulinism by whom this epistle
to Gentile churches was written cannot have been Peter,
the apostle of the circumcision (Gal. 27), who 'stood
condemned ' before Paul at Antioch for ' dissimulation '
(Gal. 2 1 1 3 ) as to the vital question of the primitive
Christian economy. The argument for an apostolical
authorship based on 1 3 8 2 1 and 2 2 1 - 2 3 is groundless
in view of analogous expressions in Hebrews. It is
altogether improbable that the fisherman Peter who,
according to Papias, required an interpreter should have
command of a Greek style of the character of this writing.
' I a m writing by Silvanus ' ( A & ZiXouavoO Pypaqa: 5 12)
indicates Silvanus not as a translator or an amanuensis,
much less as the author' 92-96 A.D. (v. Soden), but
probably as the bearer of the letter (see Acts 23).
The reference to Silvanus and to Mark (51zf.) doubt-
less belongs to the fiction of the authorship (1I ) .
The historical conditions and circumstances implied
in the epistle indicate, moreover, a time far beyond
,. The
the probable duration of Peter's life.
Ramsay (Church in Roman Empire,
284) calls attention to the fact that
the history of the spread of Christianity imperatively
demands for I Peter a later date than 64 A . D .,' the date
generally assumed by the defenders of the Petrine author-
ship. These maintain that the persecutions implied in
the passages previously referred to belong to the time of
Nero. But the references to the trials to which the
persons addressed are exposed do not well fit this period.
The persecution is of wide extent,. 'accomplished in the
brethren who are in the world' (5 g), whilst that under Nero was
limited. It was not until later that the Christians were suh-
jected to a judicial inquiry such as is implied in 315, and that
they were put on trial for their name (& X p r w r r a v 6 r . 416: cp
C HRI S TI AN , $ 6). In the Neronian persecution they suffered
for a special offence charged by the emperor in order to remove
from himself the suspicion of having set fire to the city adolendo
minon' Nero suddedit reos etc. Tac. Ann. 154r), whilst in
I Peter the Christians of Asia Minor are admonished not to
subject themselves to punishment as ' evil-doers,' but to glorify
God in this name if they sufferas Christians.
There is really nothing in I Peter which, fairly
considered, applies to the Neronian period. As to the
precise later time, however, to which the writing should
be assigned one can hardly he very positive, Holtz-
mann, Hilgenfeld, and Pfleiderer, following Schwegler
1 [Cp Zahn, Einf. 2 1 0 $3R' B. W. Bacon (Introd., I ~ M ,
p. I j7), who says all d i n g s donsidered, I Peter may still re-
present to us the idoptive work of Peter, writing " by Silvanus"
from Rome to the churches of Paul in Asia.']
3680
 PETER, THE EPISTLES O F
and Baur, are quite certain that it could not have been
written earlier than the timeof Trajan (about 1 1 2 A . D . ) ;
and it must be conceded that the state of affairs regarding
the Christians at that time, as set forth in Pliny’s letter
to the emperor, accords with certain indications in
I Peter. Ramsay, (op. cit. 288), whilst admitting the
force of Holtzmann’s argument so far as it bears against
the date 64 A.D., decides very positively in favour of 75-
80 A . D . (cp P O NT US, 2), thus doubtless excluding the
Petrine authorship. His reason for this judgment is that
there were conditions similar to those described in
I Peter earlier than the time of Trajan, that is, in the
last quarter of the first century. Hut since they also
fit the later date, they furnish no ground for excluding
it in favour of tho earlier. The data supplied in the
epistle and in known and precisely determinable historical
circumstances do not warrant us in placing its com-
position more definitely than in the last quarter of the
first, or the first quarter of the second, century. The
vague greeting (5 13) has given rise to uncertainty as to
the place from which the epistle was written. The words
’ the elect (one) in Babylon ‘ (3 ev BaPijXGvi U U E K -
1 e m . j ) have been interpreted as referring ( a ) to Peter’s
wife, ( P )to the church in Babylon, and (7) to the church in
Rome. The view (a),though defended by hlayerhoff
and Neander, has deservedly found little other support
(see Zahn, E i n l 215f., $38). and the view p is without
probability even on the presumption of the Petrine
authorship, since there is no historical evidence of a
residence of Peter in Babylon. The later date of the
epistle renders it very probable that Babylon is em-
ployed figuratively for Rome, according to Rev. 148 16 19
175 l821021.
[I Peter 513 &urr&<wac 6p;r $ ;v Bapuh&u UUvfUhfKTIj.
‘Babylon’migdt mean : (1)the Egyptian Babylon, a view which
Chase (Hastings, D B 32136) dismisses perhaps too quickly.
For the Roman fortress of Babylon in old Cairo see Butler’s
Ancient Coptic Churches in Kgypt. The city was of some im-
portance(Strabo 17 p. 807) and issometimesmentioned inecclesi-
astical literature!’ ’Epiphinius(&/on. ed Dressel 6) even calls
it r $ v C E ~ ~ . A VBL8.
V The Talmud confounds the’ Alexandrians
with the Babylonians {MindhBth iooa), because of the Egyp-
tian Babylon. Could a similar ;onfusion have been made by
the writer of I Peter? To be sure, we should have to give up
the opening verse in order to hold this theory, for tradition
connected not Peter but Mark with the church at Alexandria.
It is true the ahove-quoted passage adds, rai MQKW6 uL6s pou.
But cp z Tim.411
(2) Babylon on the Euphrates. But what evidence is there
that Peter was ever at Babylon? Besides, we have suficient
evidence of the growing decadence of ancient Babylon (see
Strabo 1G p. 738 ‘ Plin. N H 6 1 z z ceferoad solitudinernredfit;
PausaAias: viii. 3i3, cp i. 163). The Jews dwelt chiefly in the
neighbouring cities of Seleucia and Nehardea, and in villages
(Jos. A n t . xviii. 9 1-9).
(3) Theevidence,both external and internal, in favour of Rome,
seems to most scholars overwhelming. See Zahn, Einl. 217.7’3~
5.39. Asiatic Christianstoo would probably give this interpreta-
tion to the name (see Rev. as above ; cp ROMAN E MPI RE).]
The mention of I Peter in the spurious 2 Peter
(31)as if written by the same author and addressed to
8. Extent of use. the same readers, cannot of course
be regarded as a ’ witness ‘ for its
authorship. The relation between 1 Peter and I Clement
is doubtful ( 2 9 4 8 cp I Clem. 362 and 495). The
writer of Hernias furnishes a testimony only to its exist-
ence in the second quarter of the second century, and
Papias and Polycarp were acquainted with it, according
to Eiisebius ( H E 339 414)-traces of this knowledge
being found in fragments of Papias and the epistle of
Polycarp. In the absence, however, of direct citation,
and in view of the wavering and unsettled state of
opinion as to canonicity during the second century, this
use of I Peter by the writers in question furnishes
no evidence even as to their own judgment regarding
its authorship, if indeed, they may be supposed to have
formed one. The case is similar with regard to Justin.
I Peter is quoted as Peter’s by Iren., Clem.Alex., Tert.,
and Orig. As to Tertullian, however, there is some
doubt, and according to Westcott ‘ the actual traces of
its early use in the Latin churches are very scanty’
118 3681
(Canon, p. 263n. ). Itis not nientioned in the Muratorian
Canon.
z Peter.-z Peter, like the epistle ascribed to Jude, is
vaguely addressed to Christians in general-‘ to those
9. Second Peter that have obtained the like precious
faith with us ’ (1 r)-aalid there is
-its object. nothing in the contents to indicate
that Jewish or Gentile believers were especially intended.
Yet in 3 I the writer inconsistently assumes that the First
Epistle was addressed to the same readers, and tells
them (116315) that they had received instruction from
him (ostensibly Peter) and letters from Paul ! z Peter
was plainly written partly for the same purpose as
was Jude-to warn the Christians of the time against
certain persons whose false teaching and loose living
were a menace to the church. This note is struck in
116 (ucuo@tuphots pLdBots), in 2 I ($€U808I6dUKahOl,
a i p k t s drrwhelas), in 22 (TGSduehyaiars), and is em-
phasised, apparentlyin imitation of Jude, in 210-22. The
warning is resumed in 3 14-18. The readers are put on
. .
their guard against ‘mockers . walking after their
own lusts,’ as in Jude 18, with the additional indication
that their mocking is a t the delay of the ‘ coming ’ (aap-
ovuia) of Christ. These ‘ mockers ’ forget the Deluge,
and are unmindful of the judginent of ‘ fire ’ reserved
for ‘the heavens that now are and the earth ’ ( 3 5 7 ) .
In this connection appears another purpose of the writing
upon which some think the chief emphasis to have been placed:
that is, to assure the readers of the certainty of the Parousia in
opposition to the scoffers who, it appears (34), were talking 01
its non-arrival or indefinite postponement. The delay the
writer assures them, is due to the Lord’s long-suffering, in brder
that ‘all should come to repentance’ (39) before ‘the day of
judgment and destruction of ungodly men ’ (37).
Peculiar to the author is the eschatological catastrophe
depicted in 310-12, which he thinks should be ‘ earnestly
desired ’ and prepared for by ‘ holy living and godliness.’
In the peculiar reference to Paul (315f.), Schwegler
finds ‘the real literary motive’ of the epistle to be
‘ the reconciliation and blending, the final and enduring
conclusion of peace ‘ between the Petrine and Pauline
‘tendencies’ (ivachap. ZeitaZtw, 1505). This reference,
however, is too plainly incidental to the discussion of the
Parousia to be regarded as the ‘ motive ’ of the letter.
Haur reaches the same conclusion on the ground that
the connection of the theoretical ‘knowledge‘ ( b d y v w u r s )
and the practical a virtue’ (tip..$) or ‘ love’ (dydav)in
the Epistle is only another expression for the forniula
‘faith and works’ (afuns Kal +pya), which in the
formation of the Catholic church represented the union
of Paulinism and Jewish Christianity ( N T TheoZ. 297).
This view perhaps shows a correct insight into the
character, tendency, and age of the epistle ; but as an
interpretation of a conscious purpose of the writer it
must be regarded as somewhat fanciful.
The relation of z Peter to I Peter renders a com-
mon authorship extremely doubtful. The name and
lo. aelation title of the author are different. There
to Peter. are only a few words common to both
which do not belong to the Christian
vocabulary of the time or are not alsofound in the verses
in Jude corresponding to a portion of z Peter. The
style of the two epistles is different, that of I Peter being
more facile, Hellenistic in vocabulary and form of words,
and richer in thought, and that of z Peter showing an
attempt to write in pure Greek, the formation of new
words some of which belong to the technical-medical
usage of the later Greek (see <&papa, 222 and K a w o k -
Bat, IO), and repetition of the same words, particularly
prepositions.
In I Peter the second coming of Christ is regarded as
nearer than in z Peter, and is called irro~dAv\vbic,whilst in
z Peter it is designated rrapovuia ( I Pet. 1713 413; 2 Pet.
116 34). The terms xAqpovo+ia (I Pet. 14) and alhvros ,¶aut-
Aria ( z Pet. 111) also are significant,as well as the two forms
of expression &‘ IuxXbrnv rGv xp6vov ( 1 Pet.120 [BRA; R* 703
xp6vovl) and irr’ iuxirov TGY $p+v (2 Pet. 33 [BRA]). The
prominent ihrrir of I Peter gives place to yv&urc or &i YOULP
in 2 Peter and Pavriu+Qq to uaRapiu+&. In the first Epistle
3682
 PETER, THE EPISTLES O F
the diction shows the influence of the O T throughout, in the
second not a t all.
These differences in words and style have been noticed
since the time of Jerome (Holtzmann, E i n l 526, and von
Soden, H C 36193). Moreover, as to doctrinal differ-
ences, the atonement of Christ which is made prominent
in the first Epistle is barely touched upon in the second.
In contrast with the first Epistle the OT is little quoted
in the second (222 3 8 ) ; but dependence upon it is
apparent in several instances (119.21 211516 3 2 5 6 ) , and
the apocryphal is not distinguished from the canonical
literature (34-8). The familiarity with the Pauline writ-
ings evident in the author of the first Epistle does not
appear in 2 Peter, and apart from Jude the accords with
the N T literature are unimportant. The reference in
114 to Jn. 21 18 is doubtful.
Whilst all the indications point to a date later than
that of the first Eoistle. thev do not serve for its Drecise
ll. Late and determination. An advanced period
In the second century, perhaps the
aon-apostolic' latter half, is indicated bv the warning
against false teachers who are not mentionkd in I Pete:
The manner, however, in which they are character-
ised is so confused and vague that it is hazardous
to attempt to apply the features indicated to any par-
ticular sect, although the opinion that the writer had
antinomian Gnostics in mind is well-grounded. H e be-
trays uncertainty and want of independence in having
recourse to the figures and allusions of Jude which he
distorts and confuses (cp 211 with Jude 9 ; 212 Jude I O ;
217 Jude 1 2 ) ; 32 Jude 17), and it is probable that he
had in view the heretics against whom that Epistle was
directed. They are false teachers who bring in ' destruc-
tive heresies ' (2 I), and carry on their work of ' enticing
unsteadfast souls ' in a love of gain ( 2 14). The refer-
ence to Gnosticism is scarcely mistakable in UEUO+LU-
pCLIvois ptf?ors (116 ; EV ' cunningly devised fables '), and
its phase is indicated in the charge that the false teachers
promise a certain (false) ' liberty' (6heu8epLa) while
they themselves are ' bondservants' of corruption (219):
and find support in the Pauline teaching, ' wresting
it 'to their own destruction' (316). The opinion appears
tenable that this appeal of the writer to 'our beloved
brother Paul' (315) indicates a disposition not so much
to ' mediate ' between the Pauline and Petrine parties-
a matter which was doubtless far from his thought-as
to combat the Gnostic and libertine tendencies of the time
by placing the great apostle at his side against those
who as Antinomians were perverting that apostle's
teachings.
The reasons based on the character of the Epistle for
doubting its Petrine authorship have been repeatedly
stated and elaborated by the critical school, and 110
valid refutation of them has ever been effected. Although
the writer's dependence upon Jude cannot now, as in
Schwegler's time, be regarded as I a n axiom of N T
criticism,' its probability and the consensus of authori-
ties may be said to furnish a presumption against an
apostolical authorship. The author endeavours rather
too earnestly to make it appear that he is the original
apostle Peter (1114183 q ) , and yet his appeal to an
apostolic authority does not accord with this assumed
rBle ( 3 z ) , even if 'your' (6prjv [BHA]) be the correct
reading. The doubts regarding the Parousia implied
in the Epistle and the expedient resorted to in order to
answer them belong to atimefar beyond the apostolicage.
The classification of the Pauline Epistles with ' Scrip-
tures' indicates a period not very remote from that of
a developed conception of the canonicity of the N T
writings, as does also the apparent reluctance to follow
the writer of Jude in quoting the apocryphal Enoch.
The supposition that an apostle should have written a
letter like this addressed to no churches with which he
had ostensibly had relations, touching no special needs
or conditions of theirs, and warning against false
teachers located nowhere and described partly in a vague
3683
and confused manner, partly in terms borrowed from
another Epistle, is in the highest degree improbable.
The tardy recognition of 2 Peter in the early
church supports the judgment of the critical school as
12. Recognitioa. to its unapostolical authorship. The
few verbal accords in Clemens Rom-
anus do not even show a literary dcpendence, much less
the priorityof z Peter. The caseis similar with Herrnas,
2 Clement. and the Martyriutn Po@carpi. The ap-
parent contact in Barnabas 1 5 4 (1ybp.+&a rap' ad74
Xlhta &T), and in Justin and I r e n z u s is explicable from
Ps. 904. The passagein Theophilus adAutoZ. 29, cited
by Zahn, is questionable. According to Cassiodorus
Clement of Alexandria commented on the writings of
the Bible a6 ipso principio usque a d f h e m , and Eusebius
says that he explained all the canonical Scriptures, not
omitting those which are disputed-the Epistle of
Jude and the other Catholic Epistles. These statements
render his acquaintance with 2 Peter probable but not
certain. It is, however, worthy of note that in a pass-
age in the Stromata Clement appears, like Irenajus, to
have known only one Epistle of Peter (6 IIdipos t u T$
6rt~i0h$ ... Xhyer). His attitude toward the second
Epistle, if he knew it, was probably that of Origen,
who speaks of it as ' doubted ' (dp+ipdhXmar yclp, Eus.
HE 6 25). Eusebius says it was controverted and not
received into the canon ( O ~ KQustdOqrov ptv eivar, HE
3325). Didymus mentions it as a fact not to be con-
cealed that it was regarded as forged (fualrsatam) and was
not in the canon, and Jerome says that most persons
deny it to have been written by Peter on account of its
disagreement in style with the first. It does not appear
in the Muratorian canon or in the PBshittS.
Besides the standard German and English Introductions to
the N T and the works referred t o in this article, the most impor-
tant discussions of the two Epistles are con-
13. Literature. tained in the commentaries or special works
of Dietlein (1851 ; 2 Pet. only), Schott(1863).
Huther in Meyer (1852 E T 1881),Frohnmiiller 3 in Lange(i871)
Ewald (Die Sieben klendschreiben, etc. [1870]), Hundhause;
(Die beiden Ponfi/Zcal-schreiben etc. [1873-18781), Keil (Pet. u.
Jwdas [18531) Holtzmann and hchenkel (BiG. Lex.), Sieffert
(PREP)[ISS;]), B. Weiss (Der ptrinische Lehvbep-#[1855],
and St. K Y. 1866, pp. 256F Die Petrinische Frage' Das
Verhaltness ;urn Judashrief ),'Spitta (Der z Briqfa'es get. u.
der BY. des.T/vdus [r885]), Hilgenfeld. ( Z W T h . [18731), Immer
( N T Theol.), Pfleiderer (Dus Urchrrstenthum), E. A. Abbott
(Expositor, 2nd Series, 3 4 9 8 , on relation of z Peter to Jos.),
Deissmann (Bi6elstudien [18951, 244f: z77&), M'Giffert ( H i s t .
of Christianity in the Apostolic Age [18g71, 4p& 5 9 6 8 600
fi), Harnack (DieChronolofl? [18g7], 450-475, Die unter dem
Namen des Petrus fiinf Schriften ') Bigg Peter and j u d c
(' Intern. Crit. Comm.'), . Monnier, k a p ~ & .E). de l'a96trc
Pi2m-e ( ~ g w ) ,Hort (a Lagment, on I Pet. 1 1 - 2 1 7 , published
posthumously 1898), and F. H. Chase (articles in Hastings,
DB, vol. 3 ; 'non-Petrine authorship of 2 Peter is granted).
[See also van Manen, Handleiding DOOT de oudchrisielijke
Letterkunde ('goo), pp. 64-67 ; I Peter probably written in Asia
Minor between 130 and 140, 2 Peter about 170, perhaps in Egypt.
Van Manen regards the stay of Peter a t Rome a s highly un-
certain, not to say, improbable, in spite of what Lightfoot brings
forward in Clement of Rome, ii. 493.1 0.c.
[The present position of conservative criticism may be seen
from the sixth edition of part 12 of Meyer's commentary on the
N T which is the work of Prof. E. Kiihl (1897). T h e attempt
is there made to prove critically the authenticity of I Pet. and
of Jude, as well a s of 2 Pet. 2 3 3-18. The first Epistle of Peter was
Kiihl thinks, addressed to Jewish Christians, and the passage;
1I 2 2 5 4 3 2 2 114 18 2 g j : 3 6 are carefully studied in order to
prove this. Unfortunately there is no trace of Jewish-Christian
views (maintenance of the political forms of Judaism, of the pre.
rogative of the Jewish people, and of the Mosaic Law as neces-
sarily to be ohserved by those who are horn Jews) anywhere in
the epistle, which (as Weiffenhach has pointed out) may much
more correctly be regarded a s a monument of a mild and liberal
Petrinism (cp Gal. 2 7$), which made salvation depend exclu-
sively on faith in Christ, and transferred the observance of the
law by born Jews to the domain of custom. But this view of
Christianity is not even conceivable apart from the influence of
Paulinism. Nor has Kfihl succeeded in making the existence
of Jewish-Christian communities in the provinces of Pontus, etc.
(11) in the pre-Pauline peiiod a t all probable. The opening
verse (with the address of the epistle), together with the literary
relation of I Peter to the Pauline epistles, points decidedly to
the later-ie., post-Pauline-period. See further Chase, ' Peter,
First Epistle,' Hastings, DB 3 78f (small type passage).
In his introduction to 2 Peter, uhl begins by discussing the
relation of 2 Peter to the Epistle of Jude and also the question
3684
 PETHAHIAH PHARAOH
of its unity. H i s result is that a t any rate 2 Pet. 2 1-3z was interpreter of dreams’ (#&YE). There must be a corruption
written under the influence of the Epistle of Jude. The in the text. Probably ;tiin, is due to a n accidental shifting
picture of the ‘lihertines’ in Jude is evidently a description of of the letters of the true word, which mnst have been ;tpl>
phenomena actually present to the writer ; i t has in a high degree
the note of unity. The second chapter of z Peter however has to Zarephath.’ The earlier form of Nu. 22 5 was, ‘ So he sent
a Janus-face, inasmuch a s the first half of it deals k i t h the $ing messengers to Ril‘am hen Keor (or rather Achhor) t o Zarephath,
teachers of the future, and the second with the errors of the which is by the river, to the land of the h’ne Jerahmeel ’ ( i ~ y
present. I t is, therefore, as compared with Jude, secondary. comes from iinp, which is not nnfrequently a corruption of
On the other hand there are passages in the other parts of S N , ~ ~ T . ) C. . Niebuhr’s bold conjecture(Gesc/i. 1295). ‘ Pathros’
2 Peter which eithe; are (2 3 cp Jude 17x) or apart from pre- for ‘ Pethor,’ a t any rate implies a just dishelief in Pethor. .
conceived theory may posiihly be original Ls compared with See Che. ‘ T h e Land of Musri,’ etc., OLZ,May 1899.
passages in Jude: On the whole, the second Epistle of Peter, T. K. C.
without this interpolation, is to he regarded as authentic.
It should he added that Bertholdt (E+ [18r9!, pp. 3 1 5 7 8 : ) PETHUEL (b’K9n0, ‘God‘s simple one’ ?-cp Ps.
had already declared 2 Pet. 2 to he a n interpolation dependent 197 [8] ; Merx-and Nowack prefer 6 ’ s BaeoyHA [see
on Jude, that Ullmann (Kn’t. Unfers. des z Pet. [ I ~ z I ] )would J O EL , 5 I ]), father of the prophet Joel (Joel 1I ).
only allow chap. 1 T to be the work of Peter, and that Gess (Das
ajost. Zeupniss von C ~ YPevson, . 2 z [18791 pp. 412&) regarded An examination of the occurrences of the name JOEL (9.v.)
1 z d (arc n ~ m z - 3 3n(yrvicxovrcs)asan int‘erpolation. Weisen- suggests that it was a favourite S. Israelitish name and it may
hach, too (7Z%, Nov. 26, 1898, col. 364&), agrees with Kiihl even he held that there is a group of similar n a r k s , such as
that 2 ~ P c t2. r-3 2 is a n interpolation dependent on Jude.] Eliel Elijah Elihu and Eliah, and also Joel, which arose out
of cdrruptioAs of Jirahmeel. I t is noteworthy, as indicating
PETHAHIAH (”l’l[n?, 5 27 ; ‘ YahwB opens [the one stage in the process of development, that one of the Joels
womb],’ but adapted perhaps from an ethnic name also appears under the name IGAL(5.~1,); see 2 S. 2336; his
such as ’DlBn, ‘ a Tappuhite‘ [Che.]). father’s name was Nathan (an expansion of the Jerahmeelite
name Ethan). Kuenen (OndCB),5 69, n. 14, p. 3c4) has already
I. Eponym of one of the twenty-four priestly courses; I Ch. suggested that ‘Joel’ may he a n assumed name; and that the
24 16 (+FTalQ [B], +r%rra [AI, +&a [L]). writer of the prophecy (who in 211 31 [34] alludes to M a l . 4 5
2 . A Levite, temp. Ezra ; Ezra 10 23 (+asam [Bl, +aam [NI, !3231), may cnll himself Joel (=Elijah) t o indicate that he is
f%fia[sl [AL]), Neh. 95 (BNA om.; +fmnas [L])=I Esd.923 the teacher for righteousness’ (Joel 2 23 ?), the true Elijah
$ATHEUS (WQ%QKW [E], +aO. [AI, +r%srap [Ll).
announced in Mal. 4 5 [3 231. Now i t is far from improhahle
that Elijah was a Jerahmeelite-‘ of Zarephath.jerahmee1’ (see
3. h. Meshe~ahel,of the Zerahite branch of the tribe of Judah, THrsBE)-and that not only Elijah and Joel [see above] hut
was ‘ a t the king’s hand in all matters concerning the people,’ b y also Bethuel (see LABAN)or Pethuel is a worn-down form of
which expression we are most probably to understand that he
acted as commissary of the Persian king a t Jerusalem in the Jerahmeel. T h e impulie to prophesy was perhaps specially
absence of Nehemiah (Neh. 11 24, mz%ara[B], +a%.[AL], ra%rra strong among Jerahmeelites. C p PROPHECY, $ 7. T. I<. c.
W * ] , +a%.[N-l). PETRA (Y!D), Is. 16 I AVmg., EV SELA.
PETHOR (Tin!
; @&mypa[BFL]), a place ‘ by the
PEULTHAI, RV Peullethai (*n$L(?, like d ? D , a
river,’ where, according to the present text of Nu. 225 ..
(Baeoypa [A]), Balaam dwelt. I n Dt. 234[5] (BBAL distortion of ’“lf, Zarephathite, Y and y, 1and 5 being con-
om.) it is called ‘ Pethor of Aram-naharaim,’ a phrase founded ; L Q + O O U A ~ ~ %[Bl,
C +ohha%&[AI, + e M a % r [Ll), one of the
sons cf OEED-EDOM (q..,.), I Ch. 26 st, in a context full of dis-
which seems to imply an identification of PEth6r with a torted ethnic and gentilic names. T. K. c.
place called Pitru (see inscr. of Shalmaneser II., RPM
440, KB i. 133162j?:, and cp Schr. KGF Z z o j ? , and, PHAATH M O B (@a&@ MUAB [A]), I Esd. 511=
for Egyptian notices, &PI2)538 6 3 2 ; WMM, As. u. Ezra 26, PAHATH-MOAB.
Bur. 98 267). This important city lay on the W. of PRACARETH (@aKap& [BA]), I Esd. 5 3 4 = E z r a
the Euphrates, or, more precisely, a t the point where 257, P OCHERETH-HAZZEBAIM.
that river is joined by the Sagur (mod. SEjzir), therefore PHAEZELDAEUS (@AHZEAAAIOY [B]), I Esd. 5 3 8
a few miles S. of Carchemish. The district containing RVmZ.=Ezra 261, BARZILLAI.
it belonged to the Aramzeans, who had been expelled by
Tiglath-Pileser l., but had won Pitru back from a later PHAISUR (@alcoyp [B]), I Esd. 9zz=Ezra 1022,
Assyrian king. Shalmaneser 11. adds that he himself PASHUR, 3.
recovered the place, and settled it anew with Assyrian PHALDAIUS, RV Phaldeus ( @AA(A)AAIOC [BA]),
colonists. In modern times this identification was first I Esd. 944=Neh. 84, P EDAIAH , 5.
made by E. Hincks; it has been adopted by Sayce,
Schrader, and Frd. Delitzsch. PHALEAS ( @ a A ~ l o [BA]), y I Esd. 529=Ezra 244,

See especially Sayce, ‘The Site of Pethor,’ Acad. Sept. 16, PADON.
1876, p. 291 ; Schr. K G F 2 2 0 8 ; Del. Par. 269. PHALEK (@AAEK [Ti. WH]), Lk. 3 3 5 AV, RV
That Pethor rightly stands in Dt. 23 5 [4] cannot be PELEG (4.v.).
doubted, and it nust have been read very early in Nu.
225, for on this passage Dt. 235[4] is based. Neverthe- PHALIAS (@A),IAC [B]), I Esd. 948 RV=Neh. 87,
less the earliest form of the story of Balaam cannot have P ELAIAH , 2.
traced his origin to a place called Pethor. For no such PHBLLU (&), Gen. 469 AV, RV P ALLU (4.v.).
place as Pethor existed in the Euphrates region. PPth6r
would be in Assyrian Pitgru. while Pitru would be in PHALTI (*p$e),I S. 2544 AV, RV PALTI( g . ~ . ) .
Hebrew Pether (Path&-). Kor is it even certain that PHALTIEL (hyph), s. 3 15 AV, RV PALTIEL.
the true text of Dt. 23 5 placed Pethor in the far north ;
n?i;t3, in the phrase n’iqj n i x (.Aram-naharaini), may PHANUEL (@ANOYHA [Ti. W H ] ; cp PENUEL),of
perhaps be a corruption of Sscm,, a frequent gloss on the tribe of Asher. father of Anna the prophetess (Lk.
nix. If so, ’ Pethor of Jerahnieel ’ refers to some place 236). See A NNA .
on the N. Arabian border. PHARACIM, R V Pharakim (@APAKEM [B], @ A ~ A -
The Euphrates is iiot the only stream called j a r excelZenre
KEIM [A]. om. L), a post-exilic family of Nethinini
123, ‘the river’; there is another-that near which Rehohoth
( I Esd. 531)unmentioned in Ezraand Nehemiah. ‘Sons
lay the city of the Aramite king S h a d (see SAUL, 2). I t was of Pharakim’ perhaps represents an original 0.?7S;r ,I?
in lhort the river of Misrim miscalled traditionally ‘the river of
Egypt’ (see EGYPT, R ~ R ’ o F ) . This is the WHdy el-‘AriS, the -the guild who had the care of the temple-hangings;
border.stream of the N. Arahian land of Musri or M u y n (see cp 0315 in Phcen. CfS i. no. 86 A 5 IO. See S E T H m I h f .
MIZKAIM).T o obtain a clear and consistent geography the
‘river’ beside which was the home of Ralaam, must hr the river S. A. C.
b y which Kehoboth lay. This is confirmed by the fact (as we PHARAOH ( 3 ‘ p B ; @ A ~ A U;
P h a m o ) . the name
may fairly regard it) that Mi?rim (i.f., Muhri) occurs twice in a
corrupted form in the list of Edomite (or perhaps, rather, Aramite given to all Egyptian kings in the Bible. Evidently
-i.e., Jerahmee1ite)kingsin Gen. 363r-?g(see RELA, D ISHAHAH , 1. History like our expressions ‘the Tsar,’ ‘ the Mogul,’
nIE-ZAHAB). No such place-name as Pethor, however, is known of name. etc., it must have been a native word for
to have existed 5. of Palestine. T h e name sug-pests a connec-
tion with in, ‘ t o interpret (a dream),’ and is improhahle; ‘king,’ or one of the chief titles of the
indeed, in Nu. 225 Pesh. renders, not ‘ t o Pethor,’ but ‘ a n Egyptian rulers. The omission of the article shows its
3685 3686
 PHARAOH
stereotyped use among the Hebrews. Later, the con-
nection : Pharaoh, king of Egypt (Ex. 611,etc.), shows
a tendency of the word Pharaoh to become a proper
name, as which it seems to stand in the N T , etc.
Josephus (Ant. viii. 6 2, 5 155) correctly states that
Pharaoh meant ' king ' in Egyptian.
W e are now certain that the word is derived from
the expression for ' king ' used by the later Egyptians.
The Coptic form is (B)ppO, Lower Egyptian OypO, with
the article n(€)ppo, Cpoypo. So already, Jablonski
(Opusc. 1376). The group of signs corresponding to this in the
latest writings of the pagan Egyptians can he traced hack
through its representatives in demotic and hieratic to the early
form Pev-'o1 (originally, ' 0 , ' frnal Aleph having fallen away)
'the great house, the palace. This hieroglyphic group was
first cumpared with the Hebrew word by de Rouge (cp Ebers,
A i . , ? . Biichev Mosis, 264). It is remarkable that the Greek
tradition in Horapollo still knew that OIKOSplyas= ' king.'
The expression occurs already in the texts of the
pyramid-period from dynasty four onwards (later, e.g.,
in the famous inscription of 'Una,' Z. 8) in titles like
'only friend of the Great House.' ' Great House ' is a
paraphrase for ' king ' due to reverence, exactly like the
modern expressions ' the holy see ' for ' pope,' ' the
Porte ' or ' the Sublime Porte,' etc. In the early period
referred to, it was not yet possible to use ' great house'
as perfectly synonymous with ' king.' Expressions
like ' to follow the Great-House on his chariot' (Pap.
Orbiney, 175 ; dyn. 19), in w-hich the etymology begins
to be forgotten, do not occur in the time of the Old or
the Middle Empire. It is only in the vernacular style
of the New Empire that the title can be used in the
loose way quoted above ; it becomes the usual word
for ' king,' superseding the earlier expressions like &nf
'( ' His Majesty ') and sin, only a t a much later date.
Consequently the Hebrews can have received it only
after 1000 n.c.
In confirmation of this, we see from the Amarna letters that
the title was unknown in Asia about 1400 B.C. The absence of
the word in the Assyrian texts (the alleged Piv's,king of Egypt,
belon-s rather, a5 Winckler has shown, to the Arabian country
Mz$) is, however, no cogent argument. No Semitic lang-uage
except Hebrew adopted the word ; the Koranic form Fir'aun
Shows the influence of Syrian Christianity.
The rendering in Hebrew orthography is remarkably
good and archaic. The strange vocalisation is sup-
ported by @ and, therefore, must not be abandoned
too 1ightly;s perhaps it represents an archaic pro-
hunciation.
Other Egyptian etymologies which have been suggested
cannot he upheld. p-lZe' 'the sun' (Kosellini,Wilkinson, etc.),
for example, never was the common desigiiation of the king, and
would, in Hebrew letters, give only mg. Lepage Renouf,
P S B A 15421, prpposed a Hebrew derivation from the root ym,
('to be noble') with little probability.
W e proceed to an enumeration of the various
Pharaohs mentioned in the OT.
2. OT I. Abraham's Pharaoh (Gen. 1215 f.)
Pharaohs. has, on the basis of a computation of the
lives of the patriarchs, been placed in
dynasty 12. If the latest chronology is to be followed,
PHARPAR
some 4 3 0 years before the Exodus. The usual theory
with regard to the Exodus (see below, 3 ) would bring
us down to about 1700 B.C. That would correspond
with the period of the Hyksos dynasty, perhaps more
accurately with the reign of its first kings. The
tradition of Apophis (EGYPT, 5 Sz).-whether it rest on
a correct calculation or on Josephus' confusion of
Hyksos and Israelites-is remarkable, but would bring
us to the end of the Hyksos-time, which does not seem
to furnish a smooth calculation. All this depends,
however, on the Exodus-chronology.
3. The Pharaoh of the oppression and his successor
(cp Ex. 223 419) would according to Ex. 111be un-
doubtedly Rameses 11. and his son, Me(r)neptah.
This theory has now, however, been finally upset by
the discovery of the Israel-stele which proves that in
Merneptahs fifth year Israel was in Asia. See EGYPT,
E)s 5 8 -6 0 , on this conflict. It may be mentioned that
the mummy of the alleged Pharaoh of the Exodus
(Merneptah) has recently been fonnd in Thebes and is
now in the museum of Cairo. A theory of Bunsen,
placing the Exodus in the troubled time of Amenophis
IV. and his immediate successors (1400 B.C. and later ;
EGYPT, 5 5 6 ) , might be supported by Josephus's
extract from ManEtho; but its four or five kings are
in such inextricable confusion that nothing can be
proved by the passage. For the rest, there is much
that militates against such theories. [Cp MOSES.]
4. The Pharaoh contemporary with Solomon, father-
in-law of the Israelite king ( I K. 9 1624 11 I . etc.), and
also of his adversary Hadad (1118),-if one and the
same person are meant,-would be one of the last kings
of the twenty-first Tanitic dynasty, or Shoshenk I., the
founder of dynasty twenty-two (EGYPT, 5 63). It is,
however, again very doubtful whether originally the
reference was really to some Egyptian ruler(s) and not
rather to MuSrites (see HADAD,MIZRAIM, E) z b).
5 . In I K. 1425, it is very remarkable that Shishak
-Shoshenk 1.-is called not Pharaoh, but simply king of
Egypt. Griffith (in his most valuable article 'Pharaoh'
in Hastings' BD) draws the conclusion that the verse
containing the expression belongs to a source earlier
than the Pentateuchal sources, which employ regularly
the expression Pharaoh. [But cp Cn't. Bib., where it
is held that there is a confusion between Cushi, king of
Misrim, and Shishak, king of Misraini.]
6. On Pharaoh-Necho see N E C H O , and (7) on
Pharaoh Hophra see HOPHRA. The latter is meant by
the Pharaoh of Ezek. 29 32. [Cp, however, PROPHECY,
and Cril. Bib.] W. M. M.
PHARATHON (qapa8wN [ANC.aV]), I Macc. 950
RV, AV Pharathoni. See PIRATRON.
PHARES ( C p ~ p ~[Ti. c WH]), Mt. 1 3 Lk. 333 AV,
RV P EREZ ( 4 .a.).
PHAREZ. I. (719). Gen. 3829 AV, RV PEREZ.
2. (+per [BL]), I Esd. 8 30 AV= Ezra 8 3, PAROSH.

we ought rather to go back to dynasty 11. As, how- PHARIDA (Cpap[s]~Aa[BA]), I Esd. 533 RV, AV
ever, this Pharaoh seems to be only a misunderstood Pharira=Ezra 255, PERUDA(4.v.).
prince of southern Palestine (cp the parallel Gen. 26 and PHARISEES. See S CRIBES A N D P HARISEES.
see MIZRAIM. 5 z b ) , all discussions are idle.
2. Joseph's Pharaoh lived, according to Ex. 1240, PHAROSH ( E h B ) , Ezra 83 AV, RV PAROSH(4.v.).
The later Egyptians omitted the PHARPAR (757%; ~CpapCpa[Bl, CpapCpa [Bamg.bl.
i_lpopular etymology taking it for the article, which ~pap~papa ~41,~pap~pap [LI ; ~ h a y ? h a y[ v g . ~ )one
, of
?as felt to be ungrammatical as long as the expres- the 'streams (nnnj) of Damascus, 2 K. 512. T h e
sion was used for ' zrie king '-i.e. of Egypt.
2 In this period it is frequently written playfully identification of the Pharpar can hardly be doubtful,
'the great,(double)house,' which does not alter the O0 though it has not been so unanimously agreed upon as
pronunciation. In Greek times, even a feminine t-[pler-'0, Copt.that of its fellow-stream, the A BANA or A MANA [q.v.].
TEPP0 ' the queen ' can be formed. Those who insist on interpreting ' Damascus' in the
3 The only analogy would he p € ~ & w 'rich man.' This que3tion of Naaman to mean the city of that name have
stands, however, for reme-lo, and the short vowel has been
coloured to a by the 'Ain. Per, 'house,' on the other hand, has to identify the Pharpar with the Nahr Taura,' which is
in all caFes been shortened down to P (cp PimEsErH, PITHOM) one of the principal streams into which the Nahr BaradB
and does not seem ever to have had two syllables. The question
remains open. The king Pheron of Herodotus may he one of 1 So Rev. W. Wright of Damascus Leisure Hour, 1874, p.
that historian's many misunderstandings, and may simply have 284 (cp Erpos. Oct. 1896, p. 2 9 5 x ) , &id long ago Benjamin of
meant 'king.' Tudela. This'identification is supported by the Arahic version.
3687 3688
 PHARZITES
is divided, and contributes largely to the fertility of
the ' meadow-land ' (eZ--merj)of Damascus. It may of
course be permitted to assume that there was a time
when the Nahr Taura flowed through Damascus,
not merely, as it does now, a little to the N., for the
site of the city of Henhadad cannot have been exactly
coincident with that of the Damascus of today.' But
how unnecessary it is to put this limitation on the
meailing of ' Damascus,' will be seen by comparing
2S.85f: rCh.185J Is.78Am.13(?), where Damascus
is used as the name of the leading Aramaean state. In
the question of Naaman, it is not Damascus the city
but Damascus the country that forms the natural
antithesis to Israel. As soon as these facts are grasped,
it becomes natural t o identify the Pharpar with the Nuhr
el-d'waj ( ' the crooked '),z which is the only independent
stream of importance in the required district besides the
Barads. This river has two principal sources.
One source is near the village of 'Ami, on the E. side of
Hermon, the other, in a wild glen, 2 m. ahove the village of
Reit Jenn, known to travellers on their way from RiiniPs to
Damascus. The two streams, called the Nahr 'Ami and the
Nahr lepniini, unite at Sa'sa' and form the A'wajwhich flows
from t 15 point onwards in a general direction NW. by N. ; it
IS no ' brawling brook ' (W. Wright) but a copious stream, from
which according to Porter, ancient canals carry the water to
placeslin the neighbourhood of Damascus. It dies out at last
in a marsh a little to the S. of that in which the BaradC dis-
appears.
The name Pharpar has been thought to survive in
that of the Nahr (WHdy) Barbar, which also rises on
the E:. side of Hermon, but farther to the N., and flows
S . of Damascus.J Burton indeed declares, 'There is
absolutely no Wadv Barbar. ... But there is a Jebel
Barbar which may be seen from Damascus ' ( UnexpZored
Syria, 7 ~ r g n.
, 8). This, however, does not really touch
the identification of names. T. K . C .
PHARZITES (+?!?Dg),Nu. 2620 AV. RV PEREZITES.
See PEREZ.
PHASEAH (nee), Neh. 7 5 1 AV, R V PASEAH ( p . ~ . ) . made
PHASELIS ( @ A C H ~ I C [ W ] , BACIAEIAAN [AJ4 ship's company (Weisa, A$osfe/g., L.c.).
I Macc. 1523), a Dorian colony on the confines of Lycia
and Pamphylia, standing on a small peninsula, the first
land sighted on the voyage from Cilicia to Rhodes
(Livy. 3723). ' over the sea of Cilicia and Pamphylia'
(Acts2i5). I t wasnotoriginallyLycian (cpStrabo,66;);
but later it was incorporated, and finally became a
member of the Lycian League (cp coins, and CIG 4324,
4332 : so Kalinka in Kiepert's Festschrift, 1898. p.
167J ), and marked the eastern limit of Lycian extension.
T h e town possessed no fewer than three harbours, and
was a great place of maritime trade (Strabo, 666 ; Thuc.
2 6 9 . T ~ YXXOOV T& ~ X K ~ ~T&V W V d s b @au?jXiGos,and
id. 888 ; Pol. 309). A testimony to its far-reaching ness against the proposal when it hecaine known to the ship's
commerce is the fact that, before the middle of the
sixth century B . c . , it shared in the Hellenion, or
sanctuary and ' emporium ' of the Greeks a t Naucratis
in Egypt (Herod. 2 1 7 8 ) ~ Hence Phaselis had a Jewish
colony in 139 B . C . ( I Macc. 1 5 2 3 ) .
The importance of Phaselis lay not solely in commerce.
Above it rose the Solyma mountains (Takhfali Dagh), which
left vnly a narrow passage by the sea-the p a s of &It. Klimax
--which was often overflowed by the waves when the wind was
E. : here Alexander and his army barely escaped with their
_~
1 Cp Sayce, F'atrinvchal Palestine, p. 24.
' So Niildeke, Robinson, and especially Porter (Five years in
2
Damaxus, 1 2 9 4 ; 'The Rivers of Damascus,'fourn. ojsacred
Lit., July a n d Oct., 1853). Burton doubtfully identifies with
the stream of 'Ain Fiirh (Unexplorea Syria, 1115). But this
stream joins the Baradz.
3 [ t h a s been surmised that anciently the streamjoined that now
called the AVa/ivA'zegaj and was populirly confounded with it
and Dr. Thoinson ( L A 3430) states that one of the existin;
smaller tributaries of the Sdirrini(the name of the Nahr A':+'
in the first part of its course) comes down the Wridy Barbar.
4 4&rqArs, authors ; O a o q h k , inscrr. ; OaqA(s)rsiru, coins.
6 I t struck coins with a varietyof types in the sixth and
early part of the fifth century n.c., ceasinr: o n t h e rise of the
Athenian empire (about 466 B.c.). Cp Hill, B r i f . Mus. Cat.
ofCreek Coins, [LJcia].
3689
PHENICE
fives in 334 n.c. (Strabo, 6 6 6 s ; cp Spratt and Forbes, Traziels,
119aJ). In Roman times the commerce of Pha5elis had
derenerated into piracy, with the result that the town lost its
independence in 77-75 n.c.1
The place is now called T e k i r - a v z ; it shows con-
siderable remains of its harbours, and of a theatre.
stadium, and temple. The temple of Athens at Phaselis
claimed to possess the spear of Acnilles (Paus. iii. 38).
See further description in Beaufort, Ikirramania, 56f:
W. J. Wr.
PHASIRON, THE SONS OF, a n unknown Arabian
tribe whom Jonathan the Maccabee smote ( I Macc.
966 @ A C I p W N [A]. @ A C € I P W N [HI, @AplCW,N [VI),
if ' sons of Pharison ' (so V ) IS not due to a misunder-
standing of n.?.?? 'I?, ' members of a robber-band ' ; c p
Dan. l l r 4 . T. K. C .
PHASSARON, RV Phassurus (@ACCOYPOY [AI).
I Esd. 5 25 = Ezra238, PASHHUR
(RV), 3.
PHEBE (@OIBH [Ti. WH]). Rom. 1 6 I AV, RV
(q.v.).
PHCEBE
PHENICE. I . ( @ O I N I K H [Ti. WH]), Acts11 19.
etc. AV RV PHCENCIA (pa).
2.' (OO~YL(,or cPoivr( [Ti. WH]), Acts 27 12, AV, RV PHCENIX.
T h e corn-ship from Alexandria in w-hich Paul was
being conveyed to Italy (Acts 276) was so long weather-
bound at Fair Havens on the S. coast of Crete that the
voyage could not be accomplished that year (v.9 ) , and it
became necessary to select a harbour in which to winter
(v. n). The centurion, who in a ship of the imperial
corn-fleet ranked as senior officer (Ramsay, Sf. Pauf
the Traveller, 323 f.),took the advice of the captain
and the sailing-master (EV wrongly 'the master a n d
the owner' for Kvpepv4Tqs and vahAqpos of v. I I ) , and
resolved to run westwards if possible to port Phcenix
(in which attempt, however, they failed).
To this course Paul himself was opposed, on what grounds
we are not told ; 2 nor again is his precise position in the ship
clear.
The expression in v. 12 (01 n k i o v r c , 'the more part advised ')
must not be taken to imply a general consultation of the entire
Nor can we accept
the v a p e statement that Paul was ' a person of rank whose
convenience was to some extent consulted, and whose experi-
ence as a traveller was known to he great' (so Ramsay, o j . cit.),
as helping to explain how a prisorkz should have taken part in
a council of experts. The liberty accorded to Paul at Sidon
(u. 3) obviously stands in a quite different category. Pan1 had
absolutelyno experience of the central or western Mediterranean ;
and captains and sailing-masters were scarcely likely to ask
the opinion of amateur sailors. We must he on our guard
against the falsity of the pers ective of the writer of Acts, who
of course looks at all from t f e point of view of his hero, and
depicts Paul everywhere as the central figure. It may be
doubted whether anything more ought to be extracted from the
narrative of events at Fair Havens than the fact of a general
objection urgd by Paul with characteristic vigour and direct-
company. Is it poasihle that Paul's desire to remain at Fair
Havens had its origin in a prospect of missionary work? The
important town of Gortyna was only a few miles from this point
of the coast (Strabo 478. See GORTYNA).
It is clear from a general consideration of the cir-
cumstances (see F A IR H AVENS ) that Phoenix must be
sought to the westward of the great gulf of Messara.
which begins a t Cape Matala. about 6 m. W. of Fair
Havens. It was during the run across this gulf that
the squall broke which drove the ship off her course
(v.I S ) , and ultimately caused her to drift upon the coaSt
of Malta (v.27).
Phoenix is mentioned by Strabo as a coast settlement
on what he calls the 'isthmus' of Crete-Le., the
narrow part of the island between Mount Ida and the
mountains of the broad western end (475, KaTorKfav
1 Cic. V r w . iv. 1021,Phnselis illa, quam cejit P . Semilitls.
n m fuerat urbs antea Cilicum el @redonum: Lycii illam,
.
GrrPci homines, incoiebanf . . asciuerunt sibi illud ojjidulrr
$ivafe@rimorommercio, d e i d e rfiam sociefate.
2 Acts 27 IO merely gives his summing up of the consequences
foreboded by him if the present anchorage was abandoned:
'voyage' (rbv rrAoGv) refers of course only to the proposed run
to port Phcenix, not to the entire voyage.
3690
 PHENICE
. , . r p b s ri vorly rbv iiapr.!wv).l Phcenix
‘BolviKa
is commonly identified with the modern village and
harbour of Luutrd some miles to the S W . , a position
in conformity both with the notice in Strabo and with
that of Ptolemy (iii. 173).
Ptolemy locates in this part of Crete a harbour Phcenicfis
hrpiu)
( ~ C V C K O ~ S and a town Phmnix (+oivrp r6hrq). In the
Synecdenzus of Hierocles (14 ed. Parth) Pbcenix appears under
the form Phoenice, as a hisdqxic, along with a place Lradena
--both in the neighhourhood of the island of Clauda (+OLV~KT~ PHERESITES ( @ ~ ~ E Z A I O
$ 7 0 ~’ApGfva, I.iuoc KAaiSor). Aradena is further mentioned
by Steph. Byz., under the name Araden, as a Cretan town which
was also called from its position Anopolis, ‘Upper City’ (‘ApaSju
r6hrr K p q q c . 6 82 ’AVWHOALS A + T ~ L 6r2 rb Bvar dw). Both
the name Araden or Aradena and the name Anopolis survive
unchanged- Ampolis or Ana#olis being that of a group of
villages on the plateau N. of Loutr6, W. of which, about a mile
inland from the harbour, is the village of Aradhena. Both a t
Aradhena and a t Loutr6 are found ancient remains (those a t
the latter place Roman) ; but the chief ancient Greek site is on
a hill on the southern edge of the plateau. Here was the ancient a s the Midrash (Bey. rahha, on Gen.21 22).
Araden to which was transferred the name of the harbour
Phcenjx (Loutr6).z
Loutr6 is described as ‘the only secure harbour in
all winds on the S. coast of Crete ’ (cp Smith, up. cit.,
261), and Captain Spratt writes that it is ‘ the only bay
to the westward of Fair Havens in which a vessel of
any size could find any shelter during the winter months’
(quoted by Smith, op. cit., 92, where similar testimony
by others is collected). That imperial ships were some-
times to be found there is proved by an inscription
from Loutr6 (dating from the reign of Trajan) given in
full by Smith, op. cit., 269J
It is all but impossible, however, to make the identi-
fication which thus appears so conclusive agree with
the description of the harbour in Acts 27 12.
There it is described a s hrpdva 6 s K p i q @Adrotma rani hl@a
X& xipov (AV ‘ and lieth toward the south west and north-
K Q T ~
west’; RV ‘looking north-east and south-east,’ RVmg. Gk.
‘down the south-west 7uid and down the north-west w i d ’ ) .
I . If we adopt the rendering of AV, the identification of
SPhcenix with port Loutr6 must he gurrendered ; that harbour
faces E.-i.e., is open to winds ranging from NE. to SE. We
must then identify with the harbour W. of the promontory of
:Lout16 (ending in Cape Muros) called Phineka Bay in the
Admiralty Chart.3 Soundings ringing from three and a half
fathoms to one would make it as good an anchorage a s Lout16
yt. I f the objection to wintering a t Fair Havens was that it
ies open to the E. (Acts 27 IZ), the same ohjection would appl
to port Loutr6.4 T h e evidence of navigators acquainted wit{
the coast (cp Smith, 2.c.) is against the actual existence of a
sheltered anchoraze on the W. of the oeninsula. and the charts
d o not decide the point.
2. If we adopt the rendering of RV (‘looking NE. and SE.’)
we must interpret ~ a r dhi@aand rard xipov as ‘looking down
t h e direction of’ the winds named.
This translation is supported by reference to Herod. 4 110,
‘they were borne along by wind and wave ’ (i+ipovro K ~ T ;r i p a
Kai dvspov), to which objection is made on the ground that
there the usage is of a ship in motion (the objections urged by
Page, Acts ofthe Apostles, note in loc., that ‘a harbour does
not mme and must look rani A$3a whether hi+ is blowing or
not,’and that ‘if hi+ and ~ i p o represent,
r not points of the
compass but winds in motion then raT2 XiBa rdL K a T & ~ G p oin-v
.valves the assertion that twb winds are blowing a t the same
time,’ are surely in the highest degree sophistical). The ex-
pression of Arrian (Per. Eux. 3, P+vw ve+dAj &ravaur&a &$p-
,+nrar’ etpov) is not clear (see Smith, op. cit., 89, note, for
discussion). Josephus, speaking of the places between Joppa
and Dora, says that they were all Sduoppa 6r2 725 KG& hipa
rpou@oA& (Ant. xv. 96). Thucydides describes a steady N.
wind as r a d @opdav~CI~&C (6 104).
In spite of the examples quoted, however, the phrase in Acts
is obscure: it seems due to a confusion of ideas. Ju?t as. in
.English ‘to look down the wind ’ means to look in the direction
in which it is blowing 50 in Greek ; nevertheless, @X&O usqd
of a harbour would na&ally imply ‘facing,’ ‘turned towards.
3. The explanation of Conybeare and Howson (Llfe a n d E#.
ofst. Paul,2 400) is that ‘ sailors speak of everything from their
own point of view, and that such a harbour [as that of Lout161
does “look”-from the water towards the land which encloses it
1 Lampa(Lappa, coins and inscrr.) was a t a site in the in-
terior now called Polis.
, 3 There is wme evidence that the name Phcenix still survives
in the locality (cp J. Smith, Voyagp and .S/ii#wreck of St.
PauZ(4) 258); it probably bears reference to the existence in
early diys of a Phcenisian trading-post a t this point.
8 (Pub. 1861, from survey hy Mr. Millard in 1859; large
corrections, July 1864.)
4 This ohjection would he met, however, by what we read in
Smith, 261, 269.
3691
PHILADELPHIA
-in the direction of ‘south-west and north-west.’ (Similarly
what we read in Farrar [St. Paul, 71r] is surely not to be
justified by appeals to the natural phraeology of 2). 27; cp
Page, Z.C.)~
It mnst be remembered that neither Paul nor the
writer of Acts ever saw the harbour.
Liferature.--Chiefly J. Smith’s Voyage and S h i h r e c k of
Si. PaulN, 1880. Bursian, Geogr. 21. Gnich., with authorities
therein mentioned. W.J. W.
[BAL]),
I I Esd. 8 6 9 AV,
(RV Pherezites) = Ezra 9 I, PERIZZITE.
PHICHOL (he ; @IKOA [AD], @ixoA [DEL]),
general of Abimelech, king of Gerar (Gen. 212232 [RV
Phicol]; 2626). The name, like MICHAL( q . ~ . ) is ,
probably corrupted from $;ye,
Abihail, but ultimately.
like Abimelech, from Jerahmeel.
T h e absurd rendering ‘ mouth of all ’ (cp Gen. 41 40) is a s old
Whiston, the
translator of Josephus, connects Phicol with MOA^, the name
of the native village of Joseph, the famous tax-collector under
Ptolemy Energetes Uos. Ant. xii. 4 2 ) ; so also Fiirst. An
Arabic etymology (@hzla. 8, ‘ t o give attention to’) has also
been ventured. Delltzsch (Par.270) compares the Hittite
name Pisiri ; but we require a Semitic name like Abimelech.
T. K. C.
PHILADELPHIA (@IAAAEA@I&, Rev. 11137[WH],
@IAAAEA+E~&, most minuscnles, inscrr. and classical
authors), a Pergamene foundation, as is
1. evident from its situation on the gentle
slopes at the base of the steeper hills (Mt. Tmolus)
commanding the site, a position dictated, not by
military, but by commercial considerations (Ranisay,
Hist. Geogr. uf AiW 86, Cities and Bish. of Phryp‘u.
2353 n. ; cp Holm, GR. Hist. ET 4477). It was built
by Attalus 11. Philadelphus (159.138 B . C . ) , who also
founded Attaleia in Pamphylia (see A TTALIA ). The
town lay on the southern side of the valley of the
Cogamns (or Cogamis : Ramsay, Cities and Bish. of
Phryg. l r g 6 n.), a tributary of the Hermus, near the
road uniting the Hermns and Maeander valleys. It
stood, therefore, on the confines of Lydia and Phrygia,
on the south-western edge of the volcanic region called
Katakekauniene, or ‘ Burnt Region ’ : it was, however,
properly a Mysian town (Strabo, 628) separated from
the bulk of the Mysians by the aforesaid ‘ Burnt Region,’
which itself also was variously claimed as Lydian,
Mysian, or Phrygian, from the interlacing of the bounds
of the three peoples in this district. The volcanic
nature of its soil was the cause alternately of the pros-
perity and the misfortunes of Philadelphia.
Philadelphia’s staple export was wine : its coins show the h m d
of Dionysos, the type being doubly appropriate, as Dionysos
Kathegemon was a great deity a t Pergamos (cp the coins of
Dionysopolis, also founded by Attalus II., Ramsayl ofi. cit.
1 126). Some part of its prosperity was doubtless derived from
its hot springs (cp Joan. Lyd. 75, 349, where the hot springs of
Hierapolis and LAODKEA[T.v.] are also mentioned), which
are still much used. probahly connected in some degree with
these was the celebiity of the city for its festivals and temples,
the number of which gained it the title of ‘miniature Athens.’
Frequent destructive earthquakes, however, threw heavy burdens
on its finances (Strabo, 579 628). The status of the town is
evidenced by the fact that tde Koinon of Asia, which, according
to some unknown rule of rotation, held its festival in the chief
cities of the Province ( e g . , Ephesus, Smyrna, Sardis, Pergamos,
Laodiceia), met also a t Philadelphia (CIG 1068, 3428). For
some time the town even changed its name to Neocaesareia,
and struck coins under that name during the reigns of Tiberius,
Caligula, and Claudius (Ramsay, o j . cit. 1201). T h e change
was made in recognition of the aid rendered by Tiherius on the
occasion of the great earthquake of 17 A.D. (Tac. Ann. 2 47).
. In later Byzantine times, Philadelphia was a large
and warlike city (Georg. Acropol. 111, p e y i u r ~K a t
aohvoiv8pwlros), and was a bulwark of civilisation in
this quarter, until, in 1379 or 1390, the united forces of
the Byzantine Emperor Manuel 11. and the Osmanli
Sultan Bayezid I. compelled its surrender to the Turks.
1 Ramsay (St. Paul the Traveller, 326) suggests that ‘ t h e
sailors described the entrance as one in which inward-hound
ships looked towards NW. and SW., and that in transmission
from mouth to mouth the wrong, impression was given that
the harbour looked NW. and SW.
3692