beth's, Philadelphia (1889-92); professor of dogmatic and moral theology in Nashotah House, Nashotah, Wis. (1892-97), and president (1897-1906); was consecrated bishop coadjutor of Milwaukee (1906), succeeding to the full administration of the diocese within the year. He was also canon of All Saints' Cathedral, Milwaukee (1892-1906), and president of the Standing Committee of the diocese of Milwaukee (1896–1906). In theology he is a High-churchman of the Anglo-Catholic school, and has written Guide to Seminarians (New York, 1889), and The Cure of Souls (Milwaukee, 1892, 2d ed., 1910).

WEBB-PEPLOE, HANMER WILLIAM: Church of England; b. at Weobley (47 m. s.w. of Birmingham) Oct. 1, 1837. He received his education at Marlborough College (1848-51), Cheltenham College (1851-56), and Pembroke College, Cambridge (B.A., 1859; M.A., 1878); was ordained deacon 1863 and priest the same year; was curate of Weobley, 1863-66; chaplain of Weobley Union, 1863–76; vicar of Kings Pyon cum Birley, 1866-76; and of St. Paul's, Onslow Square, 1876 sqq.; and has been prebendary of St. Paul's Cathedral since 1893. Among his other services are those he has rendered as Cambridge University select preacher, 1896; president of the Barbican Mission to the Jews, and of the London Clerical and Lay Union; chairman of the Council of the National Church League; vicepresident of the Church Missionary Society, Protestant Reformation Society, Missions to Seamen, and the Spanish and Portuguese Church Aid Society; and chairman of the Waldensian Church Mission. He is "a stanch upholder of the Protestant and Evangelical position of the Church of England as bequeathed to us from the Reformation; a strong believer in the absolute inspiration of every part of the Bible and an earnest upholder of the divinity of Jesus Christ and of his birth by the Holy Ghost, and of the atonement made by him for the sin of the world." He has written: I Follow after (London, 1894); All One; Sermons (1896); Life of Privilege (1896); Victorious Life (1896); Calls to Holiness (1900); Within and Without (1900); Titles of Jehovah (1901); Four Remarkable Letters of St. Paul's (1903); He Cometh (1905); Consider him; or, Sketches of the Four Gospels (1906); and The Beautiful Name (1910).

WEBER, vê'ber, LUDWIG: Lutheran pastor; b. at Schwelm (28 m. n.e. of Cologne) Apr. 2, 1846. He received his education at the gymnasium in Marienwerder and at the universities of Bonn, Berlin, and Erlangen; was pastor at Iserlohn, 1871-73; at Dellwig, 1873-81; and at Gladbach from 1881 to the present. He describes himself as a positive Biblical Lutheran." He is the author of Der lebendige Gott in seiner Schöpfung (Bonn, 1886); Behandlung der socialen Frage auf evangelischer Seite (1888); Ansprachen für evangelische Arbeiter-, Bürger-, und Volksvereine (Hattingen, 1890; greatly enlarged, Gütersloh, 1891, and often republished); Christus ist unser Friede (Göttingen, 1892); Geschichte der sittlich reliögisen und sozialen Entwickelung Deutschlands in den letzten 35 Jahren (Gütersloh, 1895); Friede sei mit diesem Hause. Predigt- und Andachtsbuch

(Dresden, 1899-1900); Die religiöse Entwickelung der Menschheit im Spiegel der Weltlitteratur (Güters loh, 1901); Soziales Handbuch (Hamburg, 1907); Alkohol und soziale Verhältnisse (1908); and a long series of occasional lectures published in various collections.

WEBER, SIMON: German Roman Catholic; b at Bohlingen (a village near Radolfzell, 17 m. n.w. of Constance), Baden, Jan. 1, 1866. He was educated at the University of Freiburg, St. Peter's seminary for priests, Rome, the College of St. Thomas Aquinas, Rome, and the Academy of St. Apollinaris, Rome (D.D., Rome, 1894); was vicar of Offenburg, Baden (1891-94); curate at Wollmatingen, Baden (1894-96); privat-docent at the University of Freiburg (1896-98); became associate professor of apolo getics in 1898, and of the New Testament in 1908. Besides preparing the fifth edition of C. H. Vosen's Das Christentum und die Einsprüche seiner Gegner (Freiburg, 1905), he has written Jesus taufte, Untersuchung zu Joh. iii. 22 (Offenburg, 1895); Evangelium und Arbeit, Erwägungen über die wirtschaftliche Segungen der Lehre Jesu (Freiburg, 1898); Der Gottesbeweis aus der Bewegung bei Thomas von Aquin (1902); Die katholische Kirche in Armenien, ihre Begründung und Entwicklung vor der Trennung (1903); Christliche Apologetik in Grundzügen (1907); and Die katholische Kirche die wahre Kirche Christi (1907).

WEBER, VALENTIN: German evangelical; b. at Aschaffenburg (22 m. s.e. of Frankfort) Apr. 1, 1858. He received his education at the University of Würzburg, 1877-81; served as chaplain, 1881-86; was prefect at the Julianum of Würzburg, 1886-88; traveled for the next two years, and then was prefect in Aufsees-Seminar at Bamberg; became gymnasial professor at Straubing, 1891; and took up the duties of his present position as professor of New-Testament exegesis at the University of Würzburg, 1896. He is the author of Kritische Geschichte der Exegese des 9. Kapitels des Römerbriefes bis auf Chrysostomus und Augustinus (Würzburg, 1889); Die Addressaten des Galaterbriefes. Beweis der reinsüdgalatischen Theorie (Ravensburg, 1900); Die Abfassung des Galaterbriefs vor dem Apostelkonzil. Grundlegende Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Urchristentums und des Lebens Pauli (1900); and a commentary on the epistle to the Galatians (1901).

WEDDING CUSTOMS. See MARRIAGE, I., § 11. WEED, EDWIN GARDNER: Protestant Episcopal bishop of Florida; b. at Savannah, Ga., July 23, 1847. He was educated at the University of Georgia and the University of Berlin, after which he was graduated from the General Theological Seminary in 1870. He was ordered deacon in the same year and was advanced to the priesthood in 1871; was rector of the Church of the Good Shepherd, Summerville, Ga., until 1886, when he was consecrated bishop of Florida.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: W. S. Perry, The Episcopate in America, p. 295, New York, 1895.

WEEK: Properly a period of seven days in which each day has its definite place; in a wider sense the week is a subdivision of the month which may not contain exactly seven days. The week in

"

its proper sense is now in general use among Christian peoples, but in antiquity was found only among the Hebrews, and about the Christian era among the astrologers of the East. The Hebrew week was based upon the Sabbath of Yahweh (see SABBATH); the astrological week depended upon the conception that each day in turn was controlled by the 'seven planets," the sun, moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus, Saturn. In the first Christian centuries these two conceptions were combined in such a way that Saturn's day coincided with the Sabbath. The seven-day week was not found among other ancient peoples than the Hebrews, but smaller divisions of time based on a division of the month were the Greek and Egyptian, by which the month fell into three parts, and the Indian, into two. The Avesta calendar divided the month into two parts of fourteen and sixteen days each, possibly these subdivided into two periods of seven and eight days each. The Chinese had a sixty-day period. The Mexicans divided the year into eighteen months of twenty days each, and the Romans had a sort of eight-day period, the eighth being market-day. Yet even the Babylonians did not have a seven-day week, though the seventh, fourteenth, twenty-first, and twenty-eighth days were evil days," when fresh bread, fresh roasted meats, fresh clothing, and the like were unlawful for "the shepherd of the great people" (the king?). But of a week proper there was no knowledge, as is shown by the incommensurability of the week and the month. In Cappadocian tablets appears a week of five days, and in Babylonian tablets there are traces of an astronomical division of the month into six and the year into seventy-two five-day periods.

While, then, a regularly ordered week of seven days was in antiquity limited to the Hebrews, the employment of seven-day periods was much wider, owing to the setting of special mystical value upon the number seven. Thus the continuation of festivities in Babylonia for seven days is an instance; and such a period is of frequent mention in the Old Testament for the Hebrews (e.g., Gen. vii. 4, 1. 10; Ex. vii. 25; Josh. vi. 4, 15, etc.). Among the Persians and in ancient India the seven-day duration was common for celebrations; the same is true of the ancient Germans, where it was very usual, while seven-day and seven-year periods were known to the early Greeks. But the Hebrew week does not range itself with these. It is not probable that the seven-day period of Babylonia is to be traced to a quartering of the month first, and then to a relationship with seven. A favorite method of explaining the seven-day period is by referring it to the seven planets; but the reckoning of just seven planets is less common than the high estimation placed upon the number seven. In Babylonia the reckoning of seven planets can not be proved for a high antiquity; and a connection of the Hebrew week with the planets is untenable. Nor can the holiness of the number seven be connected with the Pleiades. Yet that the valuation of this number was heightened by the number of planets known and of the Pleiades is clear. The basis of the value placed on sevens must have a more general ground. This is found in the number itself and its qualities

-it is a number in itself representing a comprehensible magnitude not too large yet large enough for common life relationships. Four, five, six, are too small, too common, to carry the idea of mystical holiness; eight (twice four) and ten (twice five) are too common and too obviously transparent; nine approaches the value placed on seven as the square of a sacred number; eleven is too large. But seven is a prime number, its magnitude easily comprehensible yet large enough to be useful. A heightening of the value may have come about through the coincidence of the seven-day periods of the moon, and through observation of like periods in sickness, to say nothing of the planets and the Pleiades. With the planetary week the Hebrew week had originally no connection; indeed, an early age for the relation of the week to the number of planets is not yet proved and does not appear in the cuneiform tablets, certainly not in the order now followed of sun, moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus, Saturn. But other principles of arrangement are discoverable, for instance, that of assumed distance from the earth. The planets were also connected with certain hours of the day in turn. While Dio Cassius attributed the conception that the planets ruled the days to the Egyptians, in reality it came from Babylonia, the motherland of astrology. Rising there in the century before Christ, it spread into the Roman Empire. In the cuneiform tablets nothing has yet been found of the regularly alternating governing of the days by the planets, nor of the arrangement of the planets according to their distance from the earth. The Babylonian arrangement is often moon, sun, Jupiter, Venus, Saturn, Mercury, and Mars; earlier still, moon, sun, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. The planetweek arose then among the astrologers of Hellenistic times.

The Jews designated other days than the Sabbath by numbers (cf. Matt. xxviii. 1; Acts xx. 7), and outside of the Sabbath only the sixth day as the day of preparation received a special designation, the Greek equivalent being prosabbaton (in the title of Ps. xcii. and Mark xv. 42), alongside of which stood the term paraskeuē, and this appears in a rescript of Augustus releasing the Jews from the necessity of appearing before the court on that day. The Christians, who took over the Jewish week, gave to the first day, on which they assembled to break bread, the name the Lord's day" (He kyriakē hēmera; e.g., Ignatius, Ad Magnesios, ix.; Didache, xiv. 1); but in general they designated the days by numbers, using the Jewish terms as above for the sixth and seventh days. The names given to the days from the planets, which came into common use in the first pre-Christian century, were avoided by the Christians; Justin (I Apol., lxvii.) and Tertullian employed them only in order to make their meaning clear to the non-Christians whom they addressed. Not till after the middle of the third century did the ordinary designation become common among Christians, and then for two centuries more only in the West and in Egypt. But the astrological conception of control of the days or of planetary influence upon them found entrance also, the idea being not that heathen deities were powerful, but that man

ticism was possible by this means. Still the official language of the Church avoided the names derived from the planets, except that dies solis (“ day of the sun") was used, and the use of numerals was constant. In ordinary life, however, even Christians employed the common designation derived from the names of the planets. (W. Lotz.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: C. L. Ideler, Handbuch der Chronologie, i. 279 sqq., Berlin, 1825; E. Schrader, in TSK, 1874, pp. 343-353; E. Mayer, in ZDMG, xxxvii (1883), 453– 455; F. Hommel, Aufsätze und Abhandlungen, pp. 373 sqq., Leipsic, 1892 sqq.; H. Winckler, Altorientalische Forschungen, ii. 91 sqq., 354 sqq., iii. 179 sqq., Leipsic, 18981902; idem, Religionsgeschichtlicher und alter Orient, pp. 58 sqq., ib. 1906; P. Jensen, in Zeitschrift für deutsche Wortforschung, i (1900), 150-160; G. Schiaparelli, Die Astronomie im Alten Testament, pp. 114-121, Giessen, 1904, Eng. transl., London, 1905; J. Meinhold, Sabbat und Woche im A. T., Göttingen, 1905; F. K. Ginzel, Handbuch der Chronologie, i. 94, Leipsic, 1906; A. Jeremias, Das A. T. im Lichte des alten Orients, pp. 182188, Leipsic, 1906, Eng. transl., 2 vols., London, 1911; J. Hehn, Siebenzahl und Sabbat bei den Babyloniern und im A. T., Leipsic, 1907; Schrader, KAT, pp. 620 sqq.; Benzinger, Archäologie, passim (consult Index under Woche," Wochenfest "); and literature under Moon; SABBATH; and YEAR.

WEGSCHEIDER, vêн'shai-der, JULIUS AUGUST LUDWIG: German rationalistic theologian; b. at Küblingen (20 m. e. of Brunswick) Sept. 17, 1771; d. at Halle Jan. 27, 1849. He received his preliminary education in the Helmstedt Pädagogium and at the Carolinum in Brunswick; was tutor in the family of a Hamburg merchant (1795-1805), and during this period studied Kant, to whom were devoted his first writings, Ethices Stoicorum recentiorum fundamenta cum ethicis principiis, quæ critica rationis practica secundum Kantium exhibet, comparata (Hamburg, 1797;) and Versuch, die Hauptsätze der philosophischen Religionslehre in Predigten darzustellen (1797). Wegscheider was principally attracted by Kant's rational analysis of religion and morals, and wrote on this subject Ueber die von der neuesten Philosophie geforderte Trennung der Moral von der Religion (1804). In 1805 Wegscheider became privat-docent at the University of Göttingen; in 1806 professor of theology and philosophy in Rinteln, and in 1810, after the suppression of this university, professor of theology in Halle. Here he was influential and popular as a teacher almost until his death.

Of Wegscheider's works on New-Testament subjects, the Versuch einer vollständigen Einleitung in das Evangelium des Johannes (1806) defends the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel; as does his Der I. Brief des Apostel Paulus an den Timotheus (1810) that of Timothy. His principal work, however, is Institutiones theologiæ Christianæ dogmaticæ, addita dogmatum singulorum historia et censura (1815), the standard dogmatic work of rationalism. The volume is not distinguished by originality of thought, and is based on the Lineamenta institutionum fidei Christianæ of Wegscheider's teacher Henke, and upon Ammon's Summa theologiæ Christianæ. Its value consists in its clear presentation of rationalistic dogmatics and in the consequent yet moderate assertion of rationalistic premises. Wegscheider judges the traditional material of Christian dogma

tics by the standard of reason, rejecting everything as untrue that does not stand this test. He held that there were several types of doctrine contained in the Bible, suited to different periods, and that one of these, of more simple and sane character, is good for all time. To him the most important part of dogmatics is that relating to the concept of God, No single proof of God's existence is sufficient to enforce belief; but taken together they do away with all doubt, so that nothing more absurd than atheism can be conceived. A supernatural revelation was impossible, there could only be a mediate one. Jesus is the supreme messenger of God, founder of his kingdom, and a sublime example for mankind, But his resurrection is to be taken simply as a resuscitation from a trance (though this idea is cautiously insinuated); the Biblical authors wrote "not without inspiration," but they often accommodated themselves to the prejudices of their time and even shared them. The conceptions to be rejected by the "more liberal doctrine " of the present are miracles, angels, devils, original sin, and a sensuous eschatology. Wegscheider was uninfluenced by idealism, and rejected the ideas of God advanced by Fichte, Hegel, and Schelling. He was accused of heresy but acquitted. After Tholuck's work began at Halle in 1826, Wegscheider's popularity waned. In his later years he was interested in the Friends of Light (see FREE CONGREGATIONS IN GERMANY).

(HEINRICH HOFFMANN.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: W. Steiger, Kritik des Rationalismus in Wegscheiders Dogmatik, Berlin, 1830; W. Gass, Geschichte der protestantischen Dogmatik, iv. 458 sqq., Berlin, 1867; G. Frank, Geschichte der protestantischen Theologie, iii. 337-338, Leipsic, 1875; K. von Hase, Gesammelte Werke, viii. 66 sqq., 337 sqq., ib. 1892; W. Schrader, Geschichte der Friedrichs-Universität zu Halle, ii. 24, 127 sqq., 165 sqq., Berlin, 1894; J. F. Hurst, Hist. of Rationalism, rev. ed., New York, 1902; ADB, vol. xli. Some of the literature under RATIONALISM will also furnish information.

WEIDNER, REVERE FRANKLIN: Lutheran; b. at Center Valley, Pa., Nov. 22, 1851. He was graduated from Muhlenberg College, Allentown, Pa. (A.B., 1869), and the Lutheran Theological Seminary, Philadelphia (1873); was Lutheran pastor at Phillipsburg, Pa. (1873-78), and also professor of English, logic, and history in Muhlenberg College (1875-77); pastor in Philadelphia (1878-82); professor of dogmatics and exegesis at Augustana Theological Seminary (Swedish Lutheran), Rock Island, Ill. (1882-91); professor of dogmatic theology in Rock Island and Chicago (1891-94); and since 1891 president and professor of dogmatic theology in the Evangelical Lutheran Theological Seminary, Chicago. In theology he describes himself as an Evangelical Lutheran, strictly confessional and very conservative." He has written Luther's Small Catechism (Philadelphia, 1880); Commentary on the Gospel of Mark (1881); Theological Encyclopaedia and Methodology (3 vols., Chicago, 1885–91, new ed., 1911); Biblical Theology of the Old Testament (1886); Introduction to Dogmatic Theology (1888); Introduc▪ tory New Testament Greek Method (New York, 1889); Studies in the Book (5 vols., Chicago, 1890–1903); Biblical Theology of the New Testament (2 vols., 1891); Christian Ethics (1891); Examination Questions in Church History and Christian Archæology (1893);

66

Annotations on the General Epistles (New York, 1897); Annotations on Revelation (1898); Theologia: OT, The Doctrine of God (Chicago, 1903); Ecclesiologia: or, The Doctrine of the Church (1903); and The Doctrine of the Ministry (1907).

WEIGEL, vai'gel, VALENTIN.
Life (§ 1).

1. Life.

Writings (§ 2).

Doctrine of Space and Time (§ 3).
Theory of Knowledge (§ 4).
Doctrine of God (§ 5).

Relations with Christianity (§ 6). Valentin Weigel, the German mystic and pantheist, was born at Naundorf (near Grossenhain, 50 m. e. of Leipsic) in 1533, and died at Zschopau (51 m. s.e. of Leipsic) June 10, 1588. He studied at Leipsic and also at Wittenberg in 1564, where he appears to have given instruction to students. In 1567 he was called as pastor to the town of Zschopau, and, while engaged in the visitations incidental to his superintendency, often officiated as adjunct pastor in several parishes. In this work he acquired an enviable repute by his preaching, cure of souls, administration, and care of the poor. Though he was charged in 1572 with holding impure doctrine, he cleared himself promptly and successfully, and subscribed the Formula of Concord without hesitation. It transpired only after his death that he was wholly at variance with the doctrine of his church, an attitude which developed during his pastoral office, the logical consequences of which he strenuously denied.

The first impressions of Weigel's writings appeared at Halle, 1609-14; additional writings and new editions were issued at "Neustadt," 1618 (Neustadt may be either Magdeburg or Halle), and 2. Writings. again at the close of the seventeenth century at Amsterdam and Frankfort.

It is possible that Weigel's writings have undergone alterations in even their manuscript stage, and that particular portions among the printed works ascribed to him may have been derived from other hands. The following writings may be pronounced genuine: (1) Gnothe Seauton (Neustadt, 1615; only the first part; the second and third parts are spurious); (2) Ein schön Gebetbüchlein (1613); (3) Ein nützliches Tractätlein vom Ort der Welt (1613); (4) Der Güldene Griff (Halle, 1613); (5) Dialogus de Christianismo (Neustadt, 1616; his most important and best work). The following are not genuine: Studium universale, hitherto much in vogue for knowledge of Weigel's theories; Von der Gelassenheit (contains a slightly altered edition of a writing by Carlstadt; cf. Wernle in ZKG, 1903, p. 319); the so-called Theologia Weigelii. On the other land, a work cited with notable frequency, Kirchen- oder Hauspostil/ Uber die Sontags und fürnembsten Fest/ Evangelien durchs gantze Jahr (1609), probably embodies genuine sermons of Weigel's. Notwithstanding these uncertainties of authorship, the number of the genuine and printed writings of Weigel's is ample enough to afford a truthful picture of his views in all principal questions. In accord with his maxim of deriving everything from the "inner light," and his contempt for all books, Weigel

effaced, almost beyond recovery, the historical sources and points of contact for his reflections. Moreover, he possessed the faculty of largely recasting what he acquired, imparting to the same an air of originality. What dependency he acknowledges is toward ancient and medieval writings— Plato, Dionysius the Areopagite, Thomas à Kempis, Tauler, Eckart, and Theologia Germanica (q.v.); the last is by far the most frequently cited. With reference to the Reformers and the earliest confessional documents his pronouncements are generally quite unfriendly. Osiander, Schwenckfeld, Münzer, and others, he declines to know and likewise disclaims all affinity with them; but he adverts to S. Frank's Weltbuch. While he frequently cites Paracelsus, it is mostly upon astronomical and astrological speculations, medicine, and natural philosophy (cf. e.g., Libell. disput., p. 26).

Weigel cultivated both philosophy and theology, and placed the two in very intimate connection. His fundamental trend in philosophy might be styled subjective idealism, treating his subjects with a lucidity far in advance of his time. 3. Doctrine His real significance for the history of of Space philosophy has not yet been fully realand Time. ized. He examined the problems of

space and time, and furnished a subjectively idealistic solution. He treats of space in Vom Ort der Welt, chap. x. (Hall, Saxony, 1613); and his conclusion is comprehended in the proposition: "for outside the world is no place, with finite dimensions, . . . hence it is certain that the world stands at no local site; the world itself is a place and concept of all places and bounded things. Therefore it is only according to their contained bounds within the world that places are indicated, but never outside the world." The theological deduction drawn is that "neither heaven nor hell is a

bounding physical place," but that every one bears hell about in himself among the damned; likewise every one bears heaven about in himself among the saints" (chap. xiv.). In the same way, the local conception of Christ's descending into hell and his ascension to heaven must logically lapse (chap. xvi.). Weigel also contests, though not quite so decidedly and clearly, the reality of the time idea; for although the point is not certainly resolvable, how far genuine Weigelian thoughts exist in the treatise devoted to this question, Scholasterium Christianum, still the negative opinion appears implied.

His most incisive speculation dealt repeatedly with the question of the practical entity of knowledge, and emphasized the subjective root thereof. For the natural discernment passing

4. Theory from the eye to the object is active, of and not passive; and therefore all Knowledge. judgment is exercised in the act of discerning or knowing, and rests not in the thing discerned " (Kurtzer Bericht vom Wege und Weise all Dinge zu erkennen, B iii. 2 v.). "All knowledge emanates from the knower (ib. . B 1 v.). Everything inheres latently in man, in his personality and subjectivity. Hence man is also everything himself; what he can and knows, to know and control his art, is his 'spirit' (Geist), or spiritual, intellectual faculty; and this 'spirit' or faculty

Weights and Measures

is man himself" (Gnothe Seauton, p. 39). Therefore there is but one discerning principle and one corresponding task, viz., to know oneself. As main support for his theory, he adduces the proper distinction of knowledge: "for if discernment emanated and issued from the object, and not from the seeing eye, then there must also follow similar and equivalent perceptiveness or discernment from an object itself: be the matter of eyes howsoever it would (p. 28). From this natural knowledge and its conscious, practical entity, Weigel distinguishes a "supernatural" knowledge by the fact that man's part in the inception and outcome is aroused by means of the object. Only here, in turn, the process rests in the subject's productivity: save that this now becomes identified with the indwelling Spirit of God. Consequently, Weigel affiliates with those men who define the principle of religious knowledge and spiritual potency as the inward natural possession of every man; and he advocates the theory of the inner word, or of the spirit in its naturalistic form. Weigel deduces all the negative consequences of this view, such as rejection of the word of Scripture, mediating office, or channels of grace, the preaching office, external church fellowship, learned theological study with all its pains, but most of all, the conditioning of religious notions and piety about a defined historical point of departure, like that in Christianity. In place of this, he elaborated a pantheistic and gnostic theosophy on vast lines, merely assimilating his vocabulary to Christian terminology. His main outlines are as follows:

God and the All are coincident in the present. Not every existence of God before the world is to be necessarily denied, but God comes to himself, to

personal and active being, primarily 5. Doctrine in and with the world. "Absolutely of God. alone and for himself, apart from all creatures, God is and continues impersonal, detached from time and place, void of energy, will, and feeling; and so he is neither Father, nor Son, nor Holy Ghost. God is eternity itself, apart from time; he hovers and abides in himself about all places; neither works nor wills nor desires, save that in, with, and through the creature he becomes personally effectual, volitional, desirous; he acquires emotion, or suffers the attributes of persons and feeling to be assigned to him " (from the manuscript: Von der Seligmachenden erkentnus Gottes). This immanency of God is differentiated only as the matter is one of good or of evil, of the outward world or of men, the kingdom of nature or that of grace. While ideas of chaos, or the negation of the cosmic order, as also the assumption of an eternity, or of a gradual emanation of the world through intermediate stages, do not appear sharply and consistently developed, evil is regarded as a necessary concomitant phenomenon of the creature state of being. The essence of sin is qualified, in one passage, as a non-existent and again, as the independent will of the creature. Therefore the goal and purpose of the "redemp-❘ tion " is also to complement and complete the nonexistent with the divine perfect existence, and to induct and restore the individual will back to the will of God (Vom Ort der Welt, chap. xvii.). More

over, from the beginning God has implanted in man the requisite powers to this intent, so that the "redemption" simply fulfils itself in that process whereby the inner principle in man which is akin to God gains the ascendency over the creature element which is averse toward God. The necessary antecedent condition, and the best means of advancing the advent of this interior process of redemption is resignation, the suppression of the individual willa virtue which he extols and recommends in the usual formulas of medieval mysticism.

Nevertheless, this simple and consistent rational structure grows involved and confused by its assimi lation to the central Christian ideas, the more so because these are stripped, as far as

6. Relations possible, of their historic origin and with Chris- external content. The divine principle tianity. în man, as imparted to every one by nature, becomes identified with Christ, especially where fruitfully developed. Christ is an inward, natural factor, without historical import. Only Weigel allows the virtual existence of an external historic Christ, which, however, has no redemptive significance. The formulas of the doctrine of the dual nature were so reconstrued by Weigel that he distinguishes a double “body” of Christ, according to his composite origin; though this, in Weigel's view, virtually covers the total phenomenon of Christ. “The one only Christ has two bodies; the divine body from the Holy Ghost, and the other body from the Virgin Mary, which is visible and mortal" (Postille, i. 214 sqq., cf. p. 38). Christ has his true flesh and blood “not from the earth, but from heaven; not from Adam, but from the Holy Ghost" (Dialogus, p. 12). Thus Weigel is enabled to emphasize the presence of the "body and blood of Christ" in the Communion. What concerns him is the inner presence of the eternal divine principle of Christ. The same parallel applies to his application of the several concepts of spirit, regeneration, and faith; these all are but new, somewhat modified or qualified formulas for the same topical consideration; that is, for the inner evolutionary proeess of the divine element and its victory over the creature element. Thus in the moral domain he advocates the fundamental tenets of enthusiasts (Dialogus, p. 76). All problems of a concrete phase in individual and social ethics are resolved on quietistic lines with rigorous consistency. He pronounces against all lawsuits, penalties, wars, trade, receiving of interest, and the like.

Weigel was not a renewer of Reformation ideas. With these, in fact, he had nothing to do; his few conceptions which are concordant with the Refor mation explain themselves by their parallel relations in a mystical vein. Just as little does he belong to the line of adherents to historical Christianity, since of this he retained merely the husks. He be longs rather to the perpetual chain of thinkers along gnosticizing, mystic, and pantheistic lines; he also paved the way toward the modern elaboration and recasting of lines of thought in the direction of monistic idealism, and in terms of critical reasoning. Though his own times opposed him, his significance was not yet realized. Real opposition to him began about the end of the sixteenth century.

[ Measures of Length.

Basis and Development of System (§1).
Basal Hebrew Measure (§ 2).
Ezekiel's Two Cubits (§ 3),

The Cubit, Hebrew, Egyptian, Babylonian (§ 4).

L Measures of Length: As in modern systems of measures, so in the ancient, measures of length furnished the basis. The original units of measurement were taken by man from his own body-fingerbreadth, hand-breadth, span, arm, foot, and step, and these are found among all peoples.

1. Basis and But such measures are only relative, Develop- since the bases are not of the same abment of solute length in different individuals. Systems. There was therefore need for an artificial normalization in order to obtain from these relative measures an absolute, secure, and generally applicable measure. This normalization has naturally worked out in different ways among different peoples, so far as they have not borrowed me from another. And yet this process of borrowing has been very extensive. The various systems of weights, measures, and coinage known to us as used in the ancient world appear to go back to the same fundamental system. But whether this fundamental system was of Babylonian or of Egyptian parentage is a question which has of late years once more come to the front; though it must not be forgotten that Egyptian culture was not uninfluenced by the Babylonian. The conclusion must be that the basis for the system of weights and measures used in Hither Asia was given in Babylonia; but again this does not exclude modification of this or that particular measure so as to agree more closely with Egyptian than with Babylonian norms. The system of Hebrew weights and measures can not be considered as a thing apart and by itself; it must be studied in connection with the varied systems in use in Asia.

As instruments of measurement there are mentioned in the Old Testament the measuring reed or tod (Hebr. keneh ḥammiddah, also shebet, Gk. kalamos, kanon, Lat. pertica mensoria, Assyr. kanu; Ezek. xl. 3, 5, xlii. 16 sqq.; Jer. x. 16, li. 19; Rev. ti. 1), and the line (Hebr. kaw, pethil pishtim, hebhel middah, Septuagint metron, schoinion, spartion; II Kings xxi. 13; Ezek. xl. 3, xlvii. 3; II Sam. viii. 2). Of the relative size of these two instruments of measurement nothing is known, though they were doubtless related to some basal unit.

2. Basal Hebrew Measure.

There is a tradition that in the Second Temple, as at Athens and in Rome, there was deposited a measyre which was the norm and an ell (cubit) in length.

Absolute Values (§ 3).

IV. Weights.

The Shekel (§ 1).

The Talent; Absolute Values (§ 2). Changes Introduced (§ 3).

In fact, among Hebrews, as in Asia generally, the cubit was the unit of length, and was designated 'ammah. Whether this term originally meant the fore-arm is not certain; the term is found in the Siloam Inscription (q.v.), and corresponds to the Assyrian ammatu. The New-Testament term for the same is pēchos (Matt.. vi. 27; Luke xii. 25; Rev. xxi. 17). This unit was employed as the basal measure in building-operations (as in the Tabernacle, the Temple, and the "house of the forest of Lebanon "; Ex. xxvi. 15 sqq.; I Kings vi. 2 sqq., vii. 2 sqq.), in the making of furniture and furnishings (I Kings vii. 23 sqq.), was applied to such materials as curtains (Ex. xxvi. 1 sqq.), and to ground measures (Ezek. xlviii. 1 sqq.); it is indeed designated the most general measure (Deut. iii. 11, “ the cubit of a man,” i.e., the common cubit), and upon it other units were based (Ezek. xl. 5, a measuring reed of six cubits long by the cubit and a handbreadth,' i.e., a handbreadth longer than the common cubit; the reed here is six cubits). The cubit divides into spans (Hebr., zereth, Ex. xxviii. 16; I Sam. xvii. 4; Ezek. xliii. 13), and this into handbreadths (Hebr. tephaḥ, I Kings vii. 26, or tophaḥ, Ex. xxv. 25, xxxvii. 12; LXX. palaistē); while the smallest measure is the fingerbreadth (Hebr. 'ebṛa', Gk. daktylos, Jer. lii. 21). In an ascending scale, it will be remembered, is to be placed the reed as above, which was equivalent to six cubits (Ezek. xli. 8). Mention is made once (Judges iii. 16) of a unit of measure called the gomedh (Judges iii. 16, "cubit "), the relation of which to the ordinary cubit is not at all defined, the Septuagint equating it with the span, the Syriac and Arabic versions with the cubit. Concerning the varied relations of the cubit to other measures (apart from the reed) nothing exact is given in the Old Testament; but there are available the rabbinic statements, and, what is of still greater importance, the analogy of the entire orient, so that it is with comparative certainty ascertained that the cubit contained six handbreadths or twentyfour fingerbreadths. The following table therefore results, showing a duodecimal basis:

cubits. To be sure, from the expression "cubit of a man (ut sup.; Deut. iii. 11) one is not to expect a distinction such as between a holy' 3. Ezekiel's and a "secular" cubit, for there is no Two Cubits. foundation in Scripture for acceptance of the fact of a "holy" cubit, the expression "cubit of a man ” having no other meaning than common cubit" (cf. for a parallel expression, Isa. viii. 1, “man's pen ”). Yet it is seen with great definiteness from Ezekiel that in his time there was in use a cubit other than that employed in an earlier period. He speaks in xl. 5, xliii. 13 of the cubit employed in measuring his temple as being a handbreadth greater than that which was in common use and was known to his readers. Apparently the exact length of his cubit is defined either because it had wholly fallen out of use or was less commonly known. The whole passage leads to the conclusion that Ezekiel's use of the longer cubit implies that this was the measure after which Solomon's Temple was constructed. Similarly the Chronicler (II Chron. iii. 3) knew that the Temple was built "by cubits after the first (i.e., old) measure." Therefore there had been an earlier and greater cubit which was superseded by the later and lesser. Unfortunately nothing is known of when and how this supersession took place, when the lesser came into recognition alongside of the larger and when it came into universal use. It has been held that the small cubit was already very early in existence, reference being made to the Siloam inscription. According to this the Siloam tunnel is 1,200 cubits long, and Conder gives the measurement as 537.60 meters; this would give for the cubit a length of .448 meter [17.6 inches], and this is a close approximation to the Egyptian cubit of .450 meter. However, 1,200 is a round number, and whoever knows the Siloam tunnel will regard neither the one nor the other measurement as giving so exact a result that a conclusion may be reached upon the question whether the cubit meant was the greater or the lesser. A full reserve is therefore becoming with reference to the absolute length of the older unit. And it does not follow that the lesser cubit of Ezekiel could not have been employed in the earlier period. The one indication apparently in possession is that the cubit of Ezekiel's time was divided into six handbreadths, the old cubit being one handbreadth larger, giving the proportion of 6:7; really, however, this is not absolutely certain, for the statement of Ezekiel may be taken to mean that the later cubit was a handbreadth smaller than the earlier, giving the relation of 56. And indeed the rabbis speak of a cubit applied to furnishings of the Temple which was five handbreadths in length and of one applied to the structure which was six in length.

These questions have interest because of the fact that for the definition of the absolute length of the Hebrew cubit recourse has to be had entirely to comparison with the Egyptian or the Babylonian cubit. No aid comes from the Old Testament. Just as from the Siloam tunnel no exact result is obtained, so fails the attempt by taking into account the brazen laver (which held 2,000 baths) to deduce the length of the cubit. No better results follow from the rabbinic assertion that the legal

289

cubit had according to tradition the length of 144 barleycorns laid side by side. On the other hand, the size of the Babylonian and the 4. The Egyptian cubit is known. The first is Cubit, settled by the discovery at Telloh in Hebrew, South Babylonia (see BABYLONIA, IV., Egyptian, § 6) of a statue of King Gudea (see Babylonian. BABYLONIA, VI., 3, § 3) which carries

upon its knees a measure which occur sixteen times upon the statue. This measure appears as a little unit of the length of 16.5–16.6 millimeters [the equivalent of .65845 of an inch], and this unit is doubtless the fingerbreadth which is so often mentioned in antiquity. Since in the Babylonian system the duodecimal method rules, there would be a measure sixty times the length of the unit just given, which would be 990-996 millimeters ([or 38.9 inches]; it will be noticed that there is a margin of variation or error of six millimeters). The measurement thus given is in agreement with other data; the Babylonian brick had a measurement of 330 millimeters on one side of its square surface. In all systems of the orient that are known the foot is two-thirds of the cubit; hence from the brick there could be inferred a cubit of about 495 millimeters [19.45 inches], and this is exactly half of the 990 millimeters given above (or 38.9 inches). But the Babylonians had two systems, one of which was twice the other in proportions (as appears also in the table from Senkereh, where two sets of measures are given in which this relationship exists). While the Babylonian system is sexagesimal, it is important to note, in connection with the question of the relationship of the Hebrew system to the Babylonian, that there are indications of this kind of subdivision in the Hebrew measures; the reed, Babylonian and Hebrew, is of six cubits, as opposed to the Egyptian. Taking the foot of two-thirds of a cubit into consideration, if Herodotus is right in his statement of a "royal" and a common" cubit, the division of the cubit into twenty-four fingerbreadths follows, each of 20.6 millimeters in length. According to Herodotus, the "royal" cubit was longer by three fingerbreadths than the "common" cubit, and the foot held to this cubit the relation of 35, and this is the measure constantly met in Babylonian structures, and its length is at least 550 millimeters (21.6 inches). A cubit from Ushak in Phrygia measures 555 millimeters, and this does not greatly differ from the result of deduction from the figures of Herodotus which would make the royal cubit 556.4-557 millimeters. The Egyptian cubit does not differ much from the Babylonian royal cubit, and in Egypt also there appears a double system-a large "royal" cubit and the "* common one the latter of six handbreadths or twenty-four fingerbreadths (=450 millimeters [17.685 inches]), the former of seven handbreadths or twenty-eight fingerbreadths (525 millimeters [or 20.6325 inches]). At first glance one might be disposed to identify the Egyptian and the Hebrew cubit; in both the relation of the large to the small cubit is the same, as are the subdivisions. But, on the other hand, the Babylonian and the Hebrew reed correspond, while the Egyptians have a fathom" which contains only four cubits; also, the traces of the duo

11

decimal system exist in the Babylonian measures. It is therefore well as yet to be reserved in regard to the relation of the Hebrew to the Egyptian set of measures. It is of considerable significance that in the fifteenth century B.C. Babylonian culture was dominant in western Asia; on the other hand, while the Hebrew may be derived ultimately from the Babylonian, the supposition is not excluded that commerce with Egypt introduced modifications. It is possible, then, to equate the Hebrew cubit with that of Gudea (of 495 millimeters, ut sup.; for Gudea see BABYLONIA, VI., 3, § 3), and after such a standard the Phenician owners of vessels seem to have reckoned the tonnage of their ships (their measurements reduce to a solid standard of 121.2, and the basis of a cubit of 495 millimeters gives as a result a solid standard of 121.28, and this can hardly be accidental). The larger cubit would correspond to a smaller of 424-425 millimeters, but this is not in evidence at all elsewhere. If it could be assumed that Ezekiel's expression is inexact and that the small cubit is five-sixths of the larger, the latter would then be 412.5 millimeters long (the size of the early Italian cubit, which was derived from the Babylonian). But this does not furnish satisfactory proof. In modern times standards in different places do not exactly correspond, even with the advantages of scientific methods; still less can exact correspondence be supposed for antiquity. Moreover, the "royal" cubit may have been precisely defined, yet not followed with exactness in the provinces, and in the course of time the standards may have varied considerably.

In ascending scale the Hebrews have above the cubit only the reed, which in name and proportions (six cubits) agrees with the Babylonian reed. All further designations for measures

=

5. Larger of distance indicate not measures in Measures the strict sense of closely defined of Length. length, but simple approximations like our term " hour's journey" (cf. the expressions in Gen. xxxv. 16, xlviii. 7, which the Septuagint renders by hippodromos, "post-station," and the Syriac by parasang; owing to this last the expression has been taken to be equivalent to parasang, the Persian measure, 5.67 kilometers [or nearly three and a half miles]; others take it as = 6.3 kilometers). Similarly the expression "a day's a day's journey" which occurs so often in the Bible has no definite limits. The ordinary journey of a caravan means travel during about six to eight hours; Herodotus reckoned the day's march of Persians at 150 to 200 stadia, representing continuous travel for eight to ten hours, and of Romans at 160 stadia. The case is different with respect to the "Sabbath day's journey ” (Acts i. 12; the expression does not occur in the Old Testament, though the rabbis had the expression teḥum hasshabbath). From the prohibition to gather manna on the Sabbath or to go forth from the camp (Ex. xvi. 26 sqq.) and from the delimitation of the Levitical cities (Num. xxxv. 5) the rabbis concluded that 2,000 cubits was the utmost distance allowed for travel on the Sabbath. There was a tradition that the distance of the Tabernacle from the limits of the camp was 2,000 cubits. In the case of cities the starting-point of

XII.-19

Weights and Measures

measurement for the Sabbath day's journey was the outer wall; within, even were the city as large as Nineveh, it was permissible to travel without limitation. There were also casuistic methods of circumventing the rabbinic limitation to 2,000 cubits and extending it to 4,000, though the purpose for which this extension could be sought was defined within certain bounds. Similarly, a Jew who on the Sabbath was caught on a journey at a distance from a dwelling might travel more than 2,000 cubits to the nearest travelers' shelter. It seems not unlikely that this distance of 2,000 cubits corresponds to an early measurement or unit of distance; there was an | Egyptian unit of 1,000 double steps, and the Talmud mentions a tradition that the Sabbath day's journey was 2,000 steps, while in the same collection pace and cubit are practical equivalents. With the inrush of Greek civilization after the time of Alexander the Great the stadion became a part of the oriental system (cf. II Macc. xi. 5, xii. 9; John vi. 19, xi. 18; Rev. xiv. 20); the Olympic stadion measured 192.27 meters [=629.7 feet], the Attic stadion, 177.6 or 197.3 meters, according to the length given to the Attic foot. The Romans introduced their mile, with a length of 1,478.7 meters [-approximately 1,600 yards].

II. Measures of Surface: As a surface measure there appears in the Bible only the yoke (Hebr. zemedh), a piece of land which a man might plow in a day with a yoke of oxen. It has been compared with the Egyptian measure which Herodotus (Hist., ii. 168) calls aroura, measuring 100 royal cubits square. But this and other comparisons with the Babylonian measures of surface are pure conjectures. A similar system of measuring land obtains among the modern fellaheen of Egypt and Palestine.

III. Measures of Capacity: While the measures for liquids (water, wine, and oil) and those for such things as meal and grain were not the same among the Hebrews, they belonged to the 1. Dry and same system. The smallest unit, the Liquid multiple of which made up other measMeasure. ures, was in Hebrew the log (Septuagint, kotyle; Lev. xiv. 10, 12, etc.), equivalent in volume, according to the rabbis, to six medium-sized hen's eggs. In the one passage in the Old Testament where this occurs, it is as a measure for liquids, but this does not exclude its use as a dry measure. The next measure in size mentioned in the Old Testament is the cab (Hebr. kab; Septuagint kabos), named in II Kings vi 25. Later data imply that this was used as a dry measure (Photius calls it a measure for grain," and Hesychius one for grain and wine"). According to Josephus, paraphrasing the passage, the cab equaled 4 log, which agrees with the Talmud when it makes a cab equal one-sixth of a seah and one-third of a hin. The latter collection divides the cab into halves, fourths, and eighths, and this in connection with II Kings vi. 25 suggests that the designation “log' was seldom in use. The omer (or homer) (Hebr. 'omer, Septuagint gomer; Ex. xvi. 16) seems to have been a measure for grain, and a gloss to the passage cited makes it equal the tenth of an ephah; it is then the equivalent of the 'issaron (Septuagint dekaton, Jọ

sephus, assarōn; Ex. xxix. 40), designated usually as a tenth or as the "tenth of an ephah." Josephus gives the omer as equivalent to seven Attic cotylæ (Ant., III., vi. 6). The corresponding measure for liquids appears as the tenth of a bath (see below, and cf. Ezek. xlv. 14), but no proper name is given for it. For liquids the most common measure is the hin, corresponding to the ephah for dry measure. Consequently the parts or fractions are often mentioned (one-half, one-third, one-fourth, one-sixth; Ex. xxix. 40; Num. xv. 4; Ezek. iv. 11). Josephus (Ant., III., viii. 3) and Jerome (on Ezek. iv. 11) define the hin as equal to two Attic choas, that is, to a sixth of a metrētēs (that is about one and one-half gallons]; this gives the equation 1 hin=12 log-one-half seah = one-sixth bath, and the Talmud often defines the hin in this way. The corresponding dry measure is designated in Ezekiel (xlv. 13) as one-sixth of an ephah, and no proper name for this dry measure is known. The seah (Gen. xviii. 6 [A. V., measure"]; Josephus, Ant., IX., iv. 5, saton; Septuagint, metron) seems to have been a dry measure, though the Talmud knows of it as also used for liquids. From the translation by the Sep

291

sages the kor appears as a dry measure. Josephus regards the kor as the equivalent of ten medimne. The table of measures of capacity given herewith results from the preceding discussion.

From the last series one might easily receive the impression that here is not a pure sexagesimal system, but a crossing with the decimal system. Espe cially does the series 1 homer =10 2. The Basis ephahs=100 omers have this appearSexagesimal. ance. But an examination of the series shows that the ephah or bath, the middle factor of the series, is in the Babylonian series purely sexagesimal, consisting of seventy-two units (the mina), and exactly so the kor consists of 720 minas, its position in the sexagesimal system making it not ten times the ephah but twelve times the maris, a unit which fell out of the Hebrew system; consequently the presence of what looks like the decimal system is quite fortuitous. The only remnant of the decimal system left is the issaron, ut sup.; the measures indicated by asterisks in the table below and their relations show that the issaron was not an original part of the system and is mentioned in P only, though Ezekiel has the divi

tuagint of ephah by three measures and of "third" in Ps. lxxx. 5 by the same word, it appears that the seah was equivalent to one-third ephah or 24 log. The dry measure most in use was the ephah, and it receives correspondingly frequent mention (Ex. xvi. 36; Lev. v. 11, etc.). The passages in the Bible indicate that in early times as in late it was in common use. Fractions of it which appear in the Old Testament are the third (Ps. Lxxx. 5; disguised in the A. V. by the translation "measure") and the sixth (Ezek. xlv. 13). The liquid measure corresponding to the ephah was the bath (e.g., I Kings vii. 36; Septuagint batos, or metrētēs; Josephus, Ant., VIII., ii. 9, bados), and Josephus makes this equivalent to the Attic metrētēs (about nine gallons), while Ezekiel equates bath and ephah. A tenth is mentioned in Ezek. xlv. 14, corresponding to the tenth of an ephah, ut sup. A lethekh appears in Hos. iii. 2 (the only place where it is mentioned) as a dry measure (for barley), and is the equivalent of half a homer according to tradition (e.g., Septuagint hēmikoros; Vulg. corus dimidius); but it is doubtful whether a unit of this capacity existed; the Vatican manuscript has instead "bottle of wine,” which better suits the context. The largest measure is the homer (Lev. xxvii. 16; Isa. v. 10); Ezekiel (xlv. 11) makes it the equivalent of ten baths and also of ten ephahs, a conclusion from which is that the homer served both for liquids and for such things as seed, as was the case with the Assyrian imir. According to Ezek. xlv. 14, the kor and the homer were identical measures; and in a number of pas

sion of the bath into tenths. In Ezekiel in the same connection there is met the division of the bath into sixths, but the early division of the ephah-bath was into thirds. The bath (for liquids) does not appear to have been divided into tenths; P speaks of the hin and its parts, which are not derived from the decimal system. In dry measure, conversely, the sexagesimal seah and cab disappear and in P are displaced by the tenth of an ephah; this is probably to be placed alongside of the introduction of certain coin-values and weights in the later period. For the original system both the issaron and the lethekh are to be stricken out. A distinction of the dry measure from liquid measure results in the tables on page 291, which exhibit purely sexagesimal features. To these the modern equivalents are added.

As an assistance toward finding the absolute value of the capacity of these measures Thenius (in TSK, 1846, pp. 72 sqq., 297 sqq.) started with the assertion of the rabbis already noted that the vol3. Absolute ume for the log was equivalent to that Values. of six eggs, from which he deduced that the modern equivalent of the log is .2945 liter and of the bath 20.1215 liters. But it is evident that such data afford no sure conclusion, and neither for cubit nor bath are secure data available. With regard to the origins of the Hebrew system, it is to be remembered that not merely the relative proportions of the different measures but the fundamental measure remained the same in the adoption of the system by the Hebrews. The Egyp‐ tian system can not be brought into connection here,

for its standards proceed in regular geometrical ratio—1, 10, 20, 40, (80), 160 hin. The Babylonian system rests upon a sexagesimal basis; even though no direct inscriptional data confirm this, all that is known of Persian, Phenician, and Syrian-Hebrew measures of capacity is consonant with the supposition that all these systems are one in their main features with the Babylonian, the source of them all. A means of calculation is afforded by the fact that in quite early times the Babylonians defined their measures of capacity by the weight of water or wine.

I. The Shekel.

Weights and Measures

lation to spices (Ex. xxx. 23), food (Ezek. iv. 10), and Absalom's hair (II Sam. xiv. 26); always the mention is of the shekel or its multiple [or parts]. As an instrument of weighing the balance is named (Hebr. moʼzenayim, Lev. xix. 36; Job vi. 2; Prov. xi. 1, etc.) also the Hebr. peles, or kaneh (Prov. xvi., 11; Isa. xlvi. 6). The weights were usually of stone (Lev. xix. 36; Deut. xxxv. 13, etc.), which lost less by abrasion and rust than metals, though lead is named in Zech. v. 7. The standard of reference was

Thus the unit of the system was a measure (the Persian maris) which would contain water the equivalent in weight of a royal talent (which we would fix at 30.3 kilograms [=66.78 lbs.] were it not that the temperature of water in the East is higher than the temperature assumed in reckoning the standard liter; an approximate reckoning, taking this into account, places the value at 30.37 liters). Only approximate and theoretical conclusions may be looked for in this field. The maris was probably divided into six parts, resulting in the following table.

It is not necessary to look very far in order to see that the incorporation of the decimal system here (5 and 10 hin, 10 bath) is only apparent, and that the sexagesimal system rules; the basis is seen in

the shekel, and in II Sam. xiv. 26 the royal shekel is named; by this is meant not a special standard differing from that in common use, but the implication is rather that of a normalized standard. The priestly codex speaks of a "shekel of the sanctuary (Ex. xxx. 13, 24, and often). The shekel is divided into halves (beka'; Gen. xxiv. 22) and fourths (I Sam. ix. 8), which are met as pieces of silver money belonging in the system of weights, since in those times a system of money [coins] had not been worked out as distinct from the system of weights. On the other hand, the "third part of a shekel" of Neh. x. 32 is rather a value than a definite weight in common use, and it is to be regarded as in connection with the introduction of a system of money. In Ezekiel (xlv. 12) there is mention of a gera ("grain ") or

named the mina (maneh) and the talent. It is interesting to note respecting the mina that before the time of Ezekiel it is not mentioned (I Kings x. 17, the minim of the Hebrew text is to be changed to me'oth, three hundred " [shekels]), as shown by the figures in Judges viii. 26; I Sam. xvii. 5, 7; II Sam. xxi. 16, xiv. 26; II Chron. iii. 9, where the weights are given in shekels, not in minas. So in later times when the mention is of minas, the discussion is of