served as a parlour or as a place for taking the midday siesta (Judges iii. 23, 25). Windows were closed in with lattice-work, as is still the case in Eastern countries. Glass could not be used for such a purpose, as it was an extremely costly material (see Job xxviii. 17, where glass is ranked with gold and precious stones).

The principal articles of domestic furniture were The Bed, consisting of a rug or mattress such as could be carried by a single person (John v. 9); it was usually rolled up during the day, and was spread, when required, either on the ground or on a ledge by the wall (Is. xxxviii. 2). More rarely bedsteads with canopies were used (Cant. i. 16).The Lampstand (often translated "candlestick" in the E. V., 2 Kings iv. 10; Matt. v. 15).-The Table, that is, one or more boards which were laid out at meal-time upon wooden props (Is. xxi. 5; Ps. xxiii. 5). Around the table were couches on which the guests reclined at full length.

The engineering of the Hebrews was confined almost entirely to the making of fortifications and aqueducts. Roads were of a primitive kind, and bridges are nowhere mentioned in the Old Testament. In their fortifications the Hebrews doubtless followed the tradition of the Canaanites, whose citywalls were famous (Num. xiii. 28; Deut. ix. 1). How strongly Jerusalem was fortified in the time of the later kings is shewn by the fact that it was able to hold out for many months against the assembled forces of the Chaldæans (2 Kings xxv. 1 ff.), who were then at the height of their power, and whom, as was popularly supposed, no stronghold could resist (Hab. 10). Of the aqueducts made by the kings of Judah, considerable remains exist in Jerusalem and its neighbourhood. The Siloam inscription relates, in a manner which implies that such operations were by no means familiar to the Hebrews of the period, how the men employed in digging a long subter

ranean watercourse worked from both ends until they met in the middle; whereupon they cut the inscription in the rock, near the exit of the tunnel, to commemorate their success.

That mining was to some extent carried on by the Hebrews is proved by Deut. viii. 9. The description of the miners in Job xxviii. 1-11 (which should be read in the R. V., for the A. V. is here somewhat unintelligible) is so vivid as to make it almost certain that the poet is relating what he had himself witnessed. But the precious stones, to which there are so many allusions in the Old Testament, were, as a rule, imported from abroad, particularly from South Arabia (Ezek. xxvii. 22). The art of engraving upon precious stones was well known to the Israelites. Thus we hear of engraved signets (Ex. xxviii. 11), and specimens of these, some of them dating from before the Exile and bearing short Hebrew inscriptions, exist at the present day.

The Hebrews were at no period a maritime people, and usually regarded the sea with vague terror (Prov. xxiii. 34). Though some parts of the Mediterranean coast were at one time or another inhabited by Israelites (Gen. xlix. 13; Judg. v. 17), shipping on a large scale was almost exclusively in the hands of the Phoenicians. Hence Solomon required the help of Tyrians, when he built a navy at the northeastern extremity of the Red Sea, near Elath (sometimes spelt Eloth), for the purpose of carrying on trade with South" Arabia (1 Kings ix. 26-28). In later times attempts were made to renew this very profitable traffic (1 Kings xxii. 48; 2 Kings xiv. 22), until the Syrians took final possession of Elath in the days of king Ahaz (2 Kings xvi. 6). Large vessels were called by the Hebrews "ships of Tarshish" (Is. ii. 16), that is, ships like those used by the Phoenicians for long voyages, Tarshish (Tartessus in the south-west of Spain) being the extreme limit of Israelite geography (Jonah i. 3).

All

Divisions of time are either natural, such as the day, the lunar month and the solar year, or artificial, such as the minute, the hour, and the week. nations who have possessed a calendar have taken some natural division of time as the basis of their reckoning, but the artificial element can never be wholly excluded. For since the solar year does not contain an exact number of lunar months, nor the lunar month an exact number of whole days, it is only by means of some conventional arrangement that months can be made to fit into years and days into months. How this object was attained among the ancient Hebrews cannot at present be known with certainty. As they were, at least in historical times, mainly an agricultural people, and as agriculture necessarily depends on the seasons, it is evident that the solar year would be to them the most important division of time. But the observance of the lunar month, and particularly the celebration of the new moon as a religious feast, are of immemorial antiquity among the Semitic races. Hence, in the calendar of the Hebrews, the solar year and the lunar month were combined. Since the solar year is greater than 12 lunar months by a period of about 11 days, it is natural to suppose that the ancient Hebrews, like the later Jews, added from time to time an intercalary month to the year, but this is nowhere stated, or even suggested, in the Old Testament. With regard to the month, there can be no doubt that it began with the first appearance of the new moon. In New Testament times the Jewish month consisted either of 29 or 30 days; if the new moon appeared on the 30th day that day was reckoned as the first day of a new month. The Rabbins, with their usual conscientiousness, framed elaborate rules as to what constituted an appearance of the new moon, how many witnesses to the fact were

necessary, what qualifications those witnesses must possess, &c.; but into these subtleties it is needless to enter. It is of more importance to notice that among the later Jews each year contained not more than 8, and not less than 4, months of 30 days, the other months having 29 days.

In the Old Testament the months are not usually named, but simply numbered, as among the Quakers; that is, it is said "in the first month," "in the second month," and so on. The later Jews, on the other hand, called their months by names, which were as follows:-

Month 1, Nisan. 2, Īyār. 3, Sīwān. 4, Tammūz. 5, Ab. 6, Elūl. 7, Tishrī. 8, Markheshwān. 9, Kislēw. 10, Tebeth. 11, Shebat. 12, Adar. To these was added, when necessary, an intercalary month, called 2nd Adar. Of the above names, 7 occur in the Old Testament, but only in post-exilic writings, namely, Nisan (Neh. ii. 1; Esth. iii. 7), Siwan (Esth. viii. 9), Elul (Neh. vi. 15), Kislew (Neh. i. 1; Zech. vii. 1), Tebeth (Esth. ii. 16), Shebat (Zech. i. 7), Adar (Esth. iii. 7, viii. 12). The origin of these names was long disputed, but it is now generally acknowledged that the Jews derived them from Babylon, for the names of months which occur in the cuneiform inscriptions are practically the same, with the exception of the 4th month (which appears as Duzu), and the 8th, called in Assyrian Araḥ samnu (i.e. eighth month), of which Markheshwän is a variation or corruption.

Besides the Babylonian names, however, we find in the Old Testament four names of months which the Exile, viz. Abib ("harvest month," Exod. xiii. 4, were certainly in use among the Israelites before xxiii. 15, xxxiv. 18; Deut. xvi. 1), which corresponded to the later Nisan, and Ziw (or Zif-1 Kings vi. 1, 37), Ethanım (1 Kings viii. 2), and Būl (1 Kings

vi. 38), which are stated to be the second, seventh, and eighth month respectively.

It is a much-debated question whether the ancient Hebrew year always began, like the Babylonian year, in spring. The Mishnah, compiled about two centuries after Christ, says that there are four beginnings to the year, one on the 1st of Nisan, one on the 1st of Elul, one on the 1st of Tishri, and one on the 1st of Shebat. Of these the most important are the 1st of Nisan, the beginning of the sacred year. and the 1st of Tishri, the beginning of the civil year. Hence most of the Rabbins affirm that, from the time of Moses onward, the Israelites had a sacred year beginning in spring, and a civil year beginning in autumn-a theory which has frequently been upheld by modern Christian scholars. Other people have maintained that the ancient Hebrew year always began on the 1st of Abib (i. e. Nisan), and that the civil year beginning in Tishri is quite a late institution. A third party contend that before the Exile the Hebrew year always began in autumn, since in Exod. xxiii. 16, xxxiv. 22, the feast of ingathering (usually called the Feast of Tabernacles) is said to be at the end of the year; also in Lev. xxv. 9, the proclamation of the jubilee is made in the seventh, not in the first month, which appears to indicate that the seventh month originally stood first in the

series.

The Hebrew week and the institution of the Sabbath are likewise subjects of controversy. Among the later Jews, as among us, the week invariably consisted of seven days, and was therefore quite independent of the month and the year. Whether this was always the case is disputed the question turns mainly on the view which we adopt as to the origin of the week. The idea that the week was borrowed by the Israelites from the Egyptians may be dismissed at once, for the Egyptian "week" (if we may so use the word) consisted of ten days. Others have maintained the week of seven days to be a

Babylonian institution, based upon the worship of the seven planets, and some have even attempted to derive the word "Sabbath" from the Assyrian. Finally, it has been suggested that the week was originally a division of the lunar month, which properly consists of about 29 days. If therefore the month was divided into four periods, corresponding to the phases of the moon, those periods would usually consist of 7 days each, especially if, as is probable from 1 Sam. xx. 18, 27, the festival of the new moon originally lasted two days. It is also worthy of notice that the Sabbath and the new moon are frequently associated-2 Kings iv. 23; Amos viii. 5; Hos. ii. 11; Is. i. 13, lxvi. 23; Ezek. xlv. 17, xlvi. 3.

The day among the Hebrews was reckoned from sunset to sunset (Lev. xxiii. 32). In the Old Testament no divisions of the day are mentioned, excepting the natural periods of morning, noon, and evening. The night, on the other hand, was divided into three watches, as is shewn by the phrase "the middle watch" (Judg. vii. 19). In later times the number of night-watches was increased to four (Matt. xiv. 25; Mark vi. 48), in accordance with Greek and Roman custom.

The division into hours was no doubt borrowed

from the Babylonians, who at a very early period began to make accurate astronomical observations and invented the system of hours, minutes, and seconds which we still employ. The word sha'ah, which among the later Jews meant "an hour," appears nowhere in the Old Testament, excepting in the Aramaic portions of Daniel; even here it does not stand for "an hour," but only for an indefinite space of time. In the New Testament period the use of the hour was thoroughly established among the Jews. The hours of the day were counted from sunrise, the hours of the night from sunset (John i. 39; Acts xxiii. 23), and consequently varied in length at different seasons of the year.

WEIGHTS.

The GERAH was the smallest weight used among the Hebrews, and amounted to the twentieth part of the shekel (Exod. xxx. 13; Lev. xxvii. 25; Num. iii. 47, xviii. 16; Ezek. xlv. 12).

The BEKA', or half-shekel, is mentioned only in Gen. xxiv. 22, and Exod. xxxviii. 26.

The SHEKEL was by far the most ordinary unit of weight; hence in stating weights the word "shekel is often omitted, as in Gen. xx. 16, where "a thousand of silver" means a thousand shekels. It cannot be said what was the exact weight of the shekel among the Hebrews before the Maccabæan period (i.e. the latter half of the second century B. C.), when it amounted to 218 grains. The Phoenician shekel was a little more, about 224 grains. Some people are of opinion that in earlier times the Hebrews had two distinct shekels, one equal to 129 grains and the other to 258, in accordance with the Babylonian system of weights; but of this there is no positive proof. Nor yet is it certain that the "sacred shekel" or "shekel of the sanctuary," mentioned in the Pentateuch, was really double of the ordinary shekel, as the Rabbins assert.

The Maneh (usually translated POUND both in A. V. and R. V., 1 Kings x. 17; Ezra ii. 69; Neh. vii. 71, 72) is often supposed to have amounted to 100 shekels, because 3 manehs in 1 Kings x. 17 correspond to 300 shekels in 2 Chron. ix. 16. When, however, we consider the frequent discrepancies between the numbers given in Kings and those given in Chronicles, it will appear unsafe to attach much importance to such an argument. In the LXX. version of Ezek. xlv. 12 the manch is fixed at 50 shekels, which modern commentators accept as the true reading, the received Hebrew text being unintelligible. From the Phoe

nicians the word passed on to the Greeks, who pronounced it mná, and to the Italians, who pronounced it mina. But the weight of the Greek mnd varied greatly in different times and places.

The Kikkur (translated TALENT in the English Bible) consisted, according to Exod. xxxviii. 25, 26, of 3000 shekels. The same was the case with the Phonician talent, which was accordingly about 96 lbs. avoird. A difficulty has sometimes been found in 2 Sam. xii. 30, where we read of a crown containing a talent's weight of gold. This crown, however, was not worn by a man but by an idol, presumably of colossal size-for the word malkām (translated "their king") was used by the heathen Semites as a name for deities; see R. V. margin.

The Qesitah is mentioned only in Gen. xxxiii. 19; Job xlii. 11 (where the A. V. has "piece of money"); and Josh. xxiv. 32 (A. V., "pieces of silver"). It has been conjectured that the qesitah was equal to about 4 shekels, but we have no means of determining its true weight.

The Litra (Latin libra) which is translated POUND in John xii. 3, xix, 39, was the ordinary unit of weight in the Roman Empire. It was rather over 11 ounces avoirdupois.

The TALENT mentioned in Rev. xvi. 21 is probably the Attic talent, equal to about 57 lbs.

MEASURES OF LENGTH.

Of the measures of length in the Old Testament some are obviously mere approximations, for practical purposes, and as their meaning is plain they require no comment. Such are

The FINGER, or FINGER-BREADTH, in Jer. lii. 21. The HAND-BREADTH, Exod. xxv. 25, xxxvii. 12; 1 Kings vii. 26; 2 Chron. iv, 5; Ezek. xl. 5, 43, xliii. 13.

The SPAN, Exod. xxviii. 16, xxxix. 9; 1 Sam. xvii. 4; Ezek. xliii. 13.

The PACE or STEP, 2 Sam. vi. 13.

The following call for more special notice: The Ammah, or CUBIT, was at all periods the ordinary unit of length among the Hebrews. Originally it was no doubt the length from the elbow to the tip of the fingers; hence we read of "the cubit of a man (Deut. iii. 11). As to the real length of the ancient Hebrew cubit, the most trustworthy source of information is the so-called Siloam inscription, discovered only a few years ago. In this inscription, which was probably made about the 8th century B.C., a distance of 1758 feet is described as 1200 cubits. Hence the cubit at that time must have been equal to about 17 6 inches. To this cubit there seems to be a reference in 2 Chron. iii. 3, "cubits after the first (or rather, former) measure"-a phrase which implies that at the time of the chronicler or of the source from which he copied (about 3rd century B. C.) another cubit had come into use. With this agrees the fact that Ezekiel speaks of a cubit longer by a hand-breadth than the ordinary cubit (Ezek. xl. 5). Under the Roman Empire the length of the ordinary Jewish cubit was 216 inches, but two other cubits are mentioned (in Rabbinical literature), of which one was apparently longer and the other shorter, by a hand breadth, than the common cubit. It is therefore probable that where in the New Testament we read of a cubit (Matt. vi. 27; Luke xii. 25; John xxi. 8; Rev. xxi. 17) we are to understand the Jewish cubit of 6 hand-breadths (216 inches), not the Greek cubit, which measured a little over 18 inches.

The Gomed occurs only in Judges iii. 16, where it is variously translated (Å. V. and R. V. "cubit"). The Kibrath ereç, rendered somewhat vaguely "a little way" in the A. V. (Gen. xxxv. 16, xlviii. 7; 2 Kings v. 19), is a land measure which we have no means of fixing.

The SABBATH-DAY'S JOURNEY (Acts i. 12) is mentioned nowhere in the Old Testament, but was an invention of the Rabbinical theologians. Because in Exod. xvi. 29 the Israelites, during their journey through the wilderness, are commanded to "abide every man in his place" on the Sabbath, and because the extreme ends of the Israelite camp were supposed to have been at a distance of 2000 cubits from the Tabernacle, it was concluded by the Rabbins that no Israelite should move more than 2000 cubits from his home or city on the Sabbath. It need hardly be said that various means were discovered for modifying or evading this decree.

The following measures, borrowed from the Greeks or Romans, are mentioned in the New Testament. The FATHOM (Greek orguia)—Acts xxvii. 28-varied from 747 to 72.9 inches.

The FURLONG (Greek stadion or stadios)-Luke xxiv. 13; John vi. 19, xi. 18; Rev. xiv. 20, xxi. 16-was equal to about 202 yards.

The MILE (Greek milion, from the Latin)-Matt. v. 41-was 1000 double paces, or nearly 1614 yards.

MEASURES OF AREA.

The ACRE (Hebrew Cemed, i.e. yoke)-Isai. v. 10, perhaps also 1 Sam. xiv. 14-was, like the Latin jugerum, the area which a yoke of oxen could plough in a day. In Isaiah the Cemed is the measure of vineyard land: corn land was also measured by the amount of seed it required (Lev. xxvii. 16).

MEASURES OF CAPACITY.

The ancient Hebrew measures of capacity cannot be accurately determined, as the Bible itself furnishes little information on the subject, and our only other guides are late writers, such as Josephus. The names mentioned are as follows.

The LoG occurs only Lev. xiv. 10, 12, 15, 21, 24, and is believed to have been about 32 cubic inches, or very nearly an English pint.

The HIN, according to the Rabbins, contained 12 lūgs. It occurs only in Ezekiel and in the ritual portions of the Pentateuch.

The BATH is believed to have contained 6 hins, that is, about 2300 cubic inches, or about 81 gallons.

The above measures were used only for fluidsthe following for dry substances:

The KAB (mentioned only in 2 Kings vi. 25) was probably equal to about 128 cubic inches, or something less than two quarts.

The 'OMER (which word occurs, as the name of a measure, only in Exod. xvi. 16, &c.) or Issurin (occurring only in the ritual portions of the Pentateuch-it is translated TENTH DEAL) contained the tenth part of an ephah, i.e. about 230 cubic inches. The Se'ah is translated MEASURE, and occurs Gen. xviii. 6; 1 Sam. xxv. 18; 1 Kings xviii. 32; 2 Kings vii. 1, 16, 18 (Isai. xxvii. 8 is doubtful). It formed the 3rd part of an ephah, that is, it was equal to about 767 cubic inches, not quite 1) peck. It has been conjectured that the word shalish (translated "measure" in Is. xl. 12 and "great measure" in Ps. lxxx. 5) was another name for the se'ah.

The EPHAH was the most usual measure for dry substances. In the A. V. it is sometimes translated "measure" (Deut. xxv. 14, 15; Micah vi. 10; Prov. xx. 10). Ezekiel (xlv. 11) declares the ephah equal to the bath (see above).

The Homer or Kur contained 10 ephahs or baths (Ezek. xlv. 11, 14), that is, it amounted to about 23,000 cubic inches, or 10 bushels and 3 gallons. The term kōr was used both for solids and fluids (see 1 Kings v. 11), and is generally rendered by "measure' in the A. V. (1 Kings iv. 22; 2 Chron. ii. 10, xxvii. 5; Ezra vii. 22).

The Lethek (mentioned only in Hos. iii. 2) is supposed to have been equal to half a homer.

Of the measures of capacity mentioned in the New Testament, some have already been described. Thus the batos (translated MEASURE-Luke xvi. 6) is the Hebrew bath; the saton and the koros (also translated MEASURE) are the Hebrew seah and kōr respectively. The former occurs in Matt. xiii. 33; Luke xiii. 21-the latter in Luke xvi. 7. The New Testament mentions also the following:

The Xestes (translated POT-Mark vii. 4) was a vessel containing a Roman sextarius, that is, about 35 cubic inches. The Syrian xestes appears to have been larger, and to have contained about 44 cubic inches.

The Choenix (translated MEASURE-Rev. vi. 6) contained about 70 cubic inches (a quart). As a labourer could be hired for a penny (denarius) a day (Matt. xx. 2), we must suppose that "a choenix of wheat or three of barley for a penny" implies great scarcity.

The Modios (the Latin modius) is properly a vessel containing 550 cubic inches, or two gallons. It is translated BUSHEL (Matt. v. 15; Mark iv. 21; Luke xi. 33).

The Metretes (FIRKIN-John ii. 6) contained about 2520 cubic inches, or over 9 gallons.

MONEY.

In spite of the important place which Palestine held in the commercial world of antiquity, the Hebrews appear to have been completely ignorant of coinage until the beginning of the Persian period. All through the Old Testament, however, we read of gold and silver used as a medium of exchange. Payments were made by weight (Gen. xxiii. 16; Jer. xxxii. 10), and in ordinary Hebrew "to weigh' and "to pay are expressed by the same word (Is. lv. 2; Job xxviii. 15). Hence Amos (viii. 5) reproaches the corn-sellers of his time with "making the ephah small and the shekel great," i. e. selling a scant measure of corn for an overweight of silver. So also we may explain the frequency with which, in Hebrew and Aramaic, the idea of "honour" or moral value is conveyed by words properly meaning "heaviness" (kābōd, yequr). Pieces of silver, bearing probably a mark to indicate their weight, but without any official sanction, were called "silver current with the merchant" (see Gen. xxiii. 16). In weighing them stones were employed, and were therefore carried about by the trader in a bag or purse. So primitive

a system offered strong temptations to dishonesty, as we may infer from the frequent allusions to false weights and false balances. It is illustrative of the practical character of the Old Testament religion that, just as Isaiah attributes the skill of the husbandman to divine teaching (Isaiah_xxviii. 26, 29), so a right balance is said to be the Lord's, and the stones of the bag to be His work (Prov. xvi. 11). In New Testament times the "money-changers" (Matt. xxi. 12) or "bankers" (Matt. xxv. 27) formed a special class. Before the Babylonian Exile sums of money were usually reckoned in shekels or talents. By a shekel we must always understand a shekel of silver, unless it is expressly stated to be of gold, as in 1 Chron. xxi. 25. It is clear that throughout the whole of antiquity gold as compared with silver was worth considerably less than at present. The ratio was not quite steady but was about 13 to 1.

The only coin, properly so called, which is mentioned in the Old Testament is the DARIC (so rendered in the R. V. always; A. V. has DRAM). It is written darkémon in Ezra ii. 69; Neh. vii. 70, 71, 72, and adarkōn in 1 Chron. xxix. 7; Ezra viii. 27. The older form was probably adarkémon-it is no doubt a foreign word, but its derivation is obscure. At all events, it has nothing to do with the name of Darius (Darayavaush). That in 1 Chron. xxix. 7 darics are mentioned in connexion with David does not of course prove that they were really current in the time of that king. It is said that Darius I. (B. C. 521 -486) was the first to coin darics. In any case the gold daric and the silver siglos, i.e. shekel (equal in value to the twentieth part of the daric), formed the official coinage of the Persian Empire from the time of Darius onwards. The weight of the Persian daric was 130 grains. On it was represented a kneeling figure, holding in one hand a bow, in the other an arrow or a spear, but it bore no inscription. It may be well to observe that in a Phoenician inscription recently discovered at the Piræus the word darkemōn seems to be used as the equivalent of the Greek drachme

The earliest Jewish coinage is that of the Hasmonæan princes. Simon Maccabæus (B. C. 143-135) coined silver shekels and half-shekels (weighing about 218 and 109 grains, i. e. equal to half-a-crown and to 1s. 3d. respectively), as well as bronze money. The silver shekel bears on one side the figure of a cup, with the inscription "Shekel of Israel" (written in the old Hebrew character, quite different from that used in our Hebrew Bibles), and on the other side a branch with three buds and the words "Jerusalem the Holy." The successors of Simon Maccabæus appear to have issued bronze coins only,

VIII.

presumably fractions of the shekel, bearing inscriptions in Hebrew or in Greek, sometimes in both languages.

The coins mentioned in the New Testament belong either to the Greek or to the Roman system. The Drachme (PIECE OF SILVER, Luke xv. 8, 9) was from an early time the most ordinary silver coin among the Greeks. Its weight varied from about 96 to about 60 grains, the heavier kind being known as the drachm of Ægina. In the first century of our era, the drachm weighed little more than 60 grains, and was therefore nearly equal to the denarius (see below), that is, it was worth about 8d. of our money. The Didrachmon (TRIBUTE MONEY, Matt. xvii. 24, R. V. HALF-SHEKEL) was double of the drachm. The Stater (PIECE OF MONEY, Matt. xvii. 27, R. V. SHEKEL) was originally a gold coin, weighing about 130 grains, but in later times the name stater was given to the silver tetradrachm, i.e. a coin worth four drachms. This is no doubt the stater of the New Testament. It has been supposed that the "pieces of silver" mentioned in Matt. xxvi. 15, xxvii. 3, 5, 6, were staters.

The Lepton (MITE, Mark xii. 42; Luke xii. 59, xxi. 2) was the smallest bronze coin in use among the Jews. According to Mark xii. 42, it was equal to half a quadrans (see below).

The three following coins are of Roman origin. The Denarion (Latin denarius) was the principal silver coin among the Romans. It was about the size of a modern sixpence, and weighed from 60 to 52 grains. At the time when the New Testament was written the denarius was worth about 8 pence of our money. The A. V. always translates this word by PENNY (Matt. xviii. 28, xx. 2, 9, 13, xxii. 19; Mark vi. 37, xii. 15, xiv. 5; Luke vii. 41, x. 35, xx. 24; John vi. 7, xii. 5; Rev. vi. 6). - The Assarion (Latin assarius or as, A. V. FARTHING, Matt. x. 29; Luke xii. 6) was a bronze coin, originally equal in value to the tenth part of the denarius; but it was afterwards reduced in weight, so that 16 assaria went to the denarius; accordingly the assarion of the New Testament was worth about a halfpenny of our money.

The Kodrantes (Latin quadrans), also translated FARTHING in Matt. v. 26; Mark xii. 42, was a fourth part of the preceding.

The TALENT (Matt. xviii. 24, xxv. 15) and the Mna (POUND, Luke xix. 13) are not coins but sums of money. In the Attic system of money, which was the most generally adopted among the Greeks, 100 drachmæ made a mnd, and 6000 made a talent. It is to this system that the New Testament refers. Hence by a talent we must understand a sum of about £213, by a mná about £3. 11s.

B. C.

G

This upland region is bounded on the west by the Mediterranean Sea and the Nile valley, or more correctly speaking by the lowland separating the western arm of the Red Sea from the Mediterranean, which is now crossed by the Suez Canal. On this side it descends steeply from an average height of two or three thousand feet, while on the east it shelves down more gradually to the valley of the two rivers and the Persian Gulf. Occasionally however it rises into considerable mountain ranges, and it is also cleft by the singular valley, occupied in part by the Jordan, which obviously is in a close structural relation with the eastern arm of the Red Sea, the Gulf of Akabah. On the north it is united to the highlands of Asia Minor, on the south to those of Arabia. Both however of these districts are practically outside the sphere of the Old Testament, and the races, by which they were occupied, had little influence on the history of the chosen people. After it had finally settled in Palestine, with Egypt on the one hand, with the Assyrians and Babylonians on the other, it occupied for no short time a position not unlike that held of late years by Afghanistan between England in India and Russia in Central Asia. Palestine was the highland region which they must cross in order to get within striking distance of each other; for whose friendship they must intrigue or whose resistance they must overcome. Only by fully realizing the physical structure of Palestine can its national history be perfectly illustrated or understood.

Palestine, or the Holy Land, measures nearly 180 miles from north to south, and about 85 miles in average breadth; indeed from the Jordan to the Mediterranean is rarely so much as fifty miles, so that the district mainly occupied by the Jews, the land of Canaan of the older books, is smaller than Wales. The whole upland region, mentioned above, extended from about lat. 27° 40′ to lat. 33° 30'. Its description may conveniently begin with the southern part, the triangular area between the two arms of the Red Sea. Of this the more southern portion, the Peninsula of Sinai, is almost an equilateral triangle in outline, except that its northern side curves slightly towards the south. It is approximately twice the size of Yorkshire. Except a narrow strip of desert which partially fringes both its eastern and its western coasts, the Peninsula is wholly occupied by bare and rugged mountains, furrowed by narrow valleys and rising into bold and lofty peaks of granite, 'porphyry,' or other hard crystalline rocks. Of these the most conspicuous are Um-Shomer (8449 feet), Serbal (6734 feet), and the group culminating in the twin summit of Jebel Katerina (8551 feet). One of the last, Jebel Musa (7373 feet), is usually identified with the scene of the Giving of the Law. In this region the children of Israel spent the fourteen months after their departure from the land of Egypt. Here, although parts of the district were occupied by miners of that nation, they were practically safe from pursuit. Here also some training could be given to the undisciplined horde, which had passed over the Red Sea, though it was proved to be insufficient when the people first reached the southern margin of the Promised Land and realized the nature of the task which lay before them.

cañons." The surface of the plateau is an arid waste, generally as monotonous as possible in scenery, and nearly waterless, but in the larger wadies (valleys) are occasional springs and watering-places, though the streams generally flow continuously only after the spring and the winter rains. Hence any approach to a permanent vegetation is restricted to the beds of these valleys. They drain for the most part towards the west and the north-west and debouch ultimately into the Wady el 'Arish, the 'river of Egypt' (Isaiah xxvii. 12).

North of the Tih desert, projecting into it as the Tih projects into Sinai, is a second and higher plateau, now called Jebel el-Magrah, about 70 miles long and from 40 to 50 across in a northerly direction. This also "terminates in steep escarpments towards the south, falling away to a lower level on the southeastern side," and it extends northward in a "series of steps or terraces to within a short distance of Beersheba from which it is separated" by a valley called Wady er-Rakhmeh (Palmer). Its valleys communicate ultimately on the one side with the Wady el 'Arish, on the other with the Dead Sea, at its southern end. This is the Negeb or 'South' Country of the Bible (Num. xiii. 17, 22), through which the twelve spies passed on their mission from 'the wilderness of Paran,' Kadesh being probably identical with Ain Gadis at the northern part of the Tih.

North of the Negeb, extending from Beersheba unto Dan, is the land of the original promise; for the settlement of two and a half tribes on the eastern side of the Jordan appears to have been the result of unforeseen circumstances, and the hold of the nation on that side of the river to have been generally more or less precarious. No district can be more sharply defined by natural features than is this Promised Land on its eastern and western side. On the former is the deep gorge down which the Jordan hurries to the Dead Sea, a gorge prolonged southwards over a comparatively low watershed to the Gulf of Akabah. On the latter lies the Mediterranean, though here a lowland fringe intervenes almost without interruption between the sea and the escarpment of the plateau. This is broadest at the southern end, where the hilly district of the Negeb declines towards the north, and the plateau of which it has formed a part is consequently narrowed-but though this lowland is comparatively speaking a mere strip, its influence on the history of the chosen people was for long most important, for prior to their arrival it had been occupied by the Philistines, a powerful race, which excluded them from the sea, and which not only was too strong to be dislodged but also not seldom became an oppressor.

But on the northern side as on the southern the upland region occupied by the children of Israel is less sharply defined by its natural features. The whole plateau west of the Jordan, together with that east of this river, may be regarded as two great expanding spurs from the same number of northern mountain ranges, namely that of Lebanon_on_the western and of Anti-Libanus on the eastern flank of a kind of trough, in which the Jordan has its origin, but which can be traced as an orographical feature in the country for a long distance northward roughly parallel with the Syrian coast. The former range is indeed apparently separated from the western plateau by the valley of the Litany, but as this river rises and flows for a considerable distance in the above-mentioned trough, east of the Lebanon, the physical connexion of the region is no more interrupted by it than is that of the Alps by the Rhone, above the Lake of Geneva.