sefi;g:v. - A Kabbalist walks into a bar, and the

More documents

Recommendations

Info

SCYTHIANS SCYTHIANS Originally the Hebrew word may have been pronounced Aikunza (:I@$#, !?@E, I!???, UzvE, I>?@); it is as Delitzsch h& pointed out (see ASHKENAZ) identical with 2. Ashkenaz AHkuza and Iikuza occurring in Assyrian in- = Sqrthim. scriptions (see 5 6). In the Behistfin inscription the Saka chief Shuka is called, in the Susian version Iskunka. Already Vater (Comm. 1802, p. 100) observed that a &ne beginning with Sc would he Suitable on account of the prosthetic A, E, or I. The essential part of the name seems to he Sku : cp ZXU-A~S, ZKO-AO~OL, IKW-=~ULS, Chinese Szii, Persian Sa-ka. ASkuza-Skuza is apparently the origin of Pd@S. In Gen. IO3 the Scythian is, then, regarded as a son of the Kimmerian (GOMER, Gimirra, Gamir. Kr,u,udpioc) pal Gngi still lingered in the neighbourhood of Urartu as the name of a chief of Sahi (Cyl. B. 41Jj. 'l'hat the memory of Gog as a people was not lost IS shown by Rtv. 208. Ewald rightly felt that the phrase ' Gog and Magog ' was not the creation of the NT apocalytic. After the name Gogarene had attached itself to the territory occupied by Scythians, at least since the beginning of the seventh century B.c., Gog naturally was understood as a Scythiau people, whatever its original character may have been. As, according to Ezek. 3617, the coming of Gog, prince of Meshech and Tubal, had been predicted by and a brother of Kiphath and Togarmah, whilst in Jer. 5 1 27 he appears as the companion of the Mannzean and Urartzan. The author of Jer. 50-51 58, whose production is largely a patchwork of quotations, seems to have Gag., the former prophets, Jerome looked for 4. I such a prophecy and found it in Nu. 227 where d and Sam. with Aq. Sym. read 'his king shall be higher than Gog.' There can be little doubt used in 51 27 some old writing now lost, since the connection of MINNI and ARARAT (qq.".) with Ashkenaz reflects a definite historical situation centuries before his own time (cp JEREMIAH [BOOK], § 20, viii.). Whether Riphath and Togarmah were current designations of certain countries in the N. at the time of the priestly editor of the Pentateuch, or likewise drawn from some older source, must be left in doubt. It has also been maintained that the Scythians are alluded to under the names Gog and Magog. Magog md was interpreted & Scythians Gy Josep& 3. (Ad. i. 61 [I IZ~]), Jerome, Theodoret, Mwog' and others. The fact that Gomer (Kimmerian), Madai (Mede), Javan (Greek), Meshech( Moschi), Tubal (Tibarenes), and Tiras (TurSa, Tyrrhenians) are so manifestly names of famous nations renders it quite certain that, if the word has been accurately transmitted, or formed at all a part of the original text, Magog must also represent the name of a well-known people. It must be confessed that the absence of so important a name alike in cuneiform and classical sources makes one suspect the correctness of the name. This has led Cheyne to suppose a dittography of lp2 in Gen. 10 2, and a corruption of P7+i in Ezek. 38 f: (see GOG AND ilIAGOG, n.). The interpretation of ARMAGEDDON (q.7~) by this szholar is indeed as plausible as it is brilliant. It seems doubtful however, whether the new-found chthonic divinity will be ok service in Ezek. 3R (cp textual corrections in col. 3881, n. I, and fur the opposite view that a great historic personage is reflected by the Gog of Ezek 38 see 8 5). A simpler suggestion as to Gen. that this is more original than MT, though the whole verse is probably a late interpolation. [Cp OG, col. 3465.1 Peyron (Sur Zes prophPles, 1693, p. 136J) called attention t: Am. 7 IC where @ read 'and behold one caterpillar, king Gog, and made this passage refer to a Sc;thian invasion. Here, too, the Hebrew text gives no satisfactory sense, and Nowack rightly rejects it as a gloss.2 Q3 probably reproduces more nearly the words of the dossator : but it mav be anestioned whether the original read 111 Sn 'king of Gkg,' 0; 7Snn 111, 'Gog; the king.' If.'king 02 GLg' was the reading 'Gog the king, and with it 'king Gog' himself, may have ori&nated in a misnnderstanding of-this marginal comment to Am. 7 I. But the idea of this king may also have been suggested by descriptions of Gagi, ruler of Sahi given by some of Ah-bani-pal's Syrian colonists, unless it sh%d ultimately prove to have its roots in Babylonian mythology wherea divinemessenger Gaga fi res in the fnuma flitepic, 3LJ 67. That the descriptions of sr. 4-6 and Zeph. 2 (see B 6 and ZEPHANIAH 8 4) cannot by themselves have led to the definite conceptio; of king Gog, is sufficiently evident from Jewish and Christian exegesis. which so long has been satisfied (but see $ 27, and Crit. Bib.) with seeing in these passages references to the Chaldzans only. That, with all its apocalyptic character, Ezek. 38-39 reflects the career of a - ereat historic Dersonaee. ". was already felt by Polychronius (about 427 6. A.D.) who thought of Antiochus 111. =Gogof He was followed in this by Grotius, Exek.38. whose commentarv Fives a detailed application of the text to the historyof the Seleucid king. Winckler most ingeniously interprets the prophecy as occasioned by the career of Alexander (A OF 21608). But neither Antiochus nor Alexander would naturally be 102 would he that Magog (111~) was miswritten for Gog (111) under the influence of 'Madai' (qn), as a consequence of a changed conception of Gog, because at one time it was customary to contract the Assyrian mlt Gag into Magag (Streck), or as a designation of a people akin to the Scythians and derived from designated ' prince of Meshech and Tubal,' and there is in neither case any motive for the feeling of hostility displayed, whilst there is evidence of a different disposition toward these kings on the part of the Jews. Gog(]iin), such as the Sarmatians or Massagetz. It is interesting that Saadia in this place has jljM9 (ed. Derenbourg), the customary rendering of ]I] at his time; cp Kur'gn 2196 and Arabic writers quoted by Herbelot. In Ezek. 38 2, 'land of the Magog' (113~n yi~) is apparently an interpolation (Stade), and The present writer would suggest that the conqueror whose career inspired this prophecy is far more likely to have been Mithridates VI. Eupator Dionysus of Pontus. in Ezek. 39 6 the original seems to have been Gog (@BQ). [On Ezek. 38 see further Crit. Bib.] In Targ. Jer. 1 to Nu. 11 26 311n~ N ~ R[D X 350 w,$n, 'a king shall arise from the land of Ma og,' depcnas on Ezek. 38 2, while in Targ. Jer. 2 jiini 111 ,.&, ' Gog and Magog and his armies,' irini is probably an Mithridates alone could rightly be entitled 'prince of Meshech and Tubal,' his seat of power being where the Moschi and the Tiharenes lived, and his sway extending over the territory once associated with those names. None could more aptly be considered as the coming Gog than the proud conqueror of Scythia who reigned over all the coast-lands of the Black Sea and brought from the farthest N. his armies. No other ruler of these realms had with him Paras Cush, and Put, Gomer, Togarmah, and the extreme N. than Mithridates, whose general Pelopidas could justly boast of the Persian auxiliaries, E ptian shi s, Cappadocian troops, Armenian contingents, and Ycythian Earmatian, Bastarnian, and Thracian hordes that swelled the ding's forces. Mithridates' dark iytrigues, his Poundless ambition, his insatiable greed, the 'Ephesian vespers with their 80,000 victims, the persecutions of the Jews in Cos and elsewhere, who were at the time warm friends and allies of Rome, must, in 88 B.c., have filled many a heart in Palestine with fear of an invasion, hatred and abomination. But in an age of eschatological hopes the'confidence could not ;ail that should he invade the 'na;el of the earth' where quiet and proiperity had been restored, and prove indeed to be the predicted Gog, he would there meet with a miserable end. By the sword of the faithful and the wrath of heaven he would perish, and his hosts would be buried during interpolation ; but Magog seems to be the name of a king, as it certainly is in Targ. Jon. to I S. 2 io. Amenhotep 111. (Am. Tab. 1 383) mentions three countries-Gag, Hanigalbat, and Ugarit. Hanigalbat is probably Melitene, and Gog is likely to have been situated NE of Commagene (Streck, ZA 1532:). A people called Gag, or Gog, was thus known in the fifteenth century B. c. Concerning its ethnic relations me as yet know nothing. In view of the marked Iranian character of some names in the ilmarna letters (see § 13). it is not too bold an assumption that Gag may have been a forerunner of ASkenaz in Anatolia belonging to the same family. Like the MuSki, the KaSki, the Tubali, and the Haldi, the Gagi may have been driven N. by new invaders ; and it is significant that, in the days of Strabo, there was a province Gogarene immediately E of the territory occupied by the Moschi, the Colchians, the Tibarenes, and the Chaldaeans (Geogr. 11 14, pp. 45zJ ed. Didot). In the time of ASur-bani- 4331 1 MT 3 3 : ~ the addition of the prosthetic N may be explained as in Arab. dJ@' for ])I in Ezek. 38 z AI. -2 [This alternative can, it would seem, be avoided by the course suggested in LOCUSTS, 5 3 with note 6. Cp Crit. Bib. ad Zoc. I 4332
SCYTHIANS SCYTHIANS seven months in ‘the Valley of the Travellers to the Sea ’ (@ of Ezek.3Yrr) whilst for himself would be reserved a famous sepulchre i; Israel in this valrsy of Hamon-Gog (Esdraelon), apparently in the city named after the foreign horde Hamonah (Scythopolis). Thus the king of Scythia would he buried in the cityof the Scythians the new Dionysus in the tomb where Dionysus-Oitosyrus b&ied Leucothea his nurse(Pliny, 5 74), who was identified with Artimpasa, the dythian Diana (Hegesippus 3 19).’ It is possible that already Photius understood Jeremiah as referring to the Scythians in 6zzS explanation only in the political relations between Scythians and Assyrians. ‘Ihe editor of Jer. 1-20 (see JEREMIAH [BOOK], 5 53) had an important landmark to go by, and rightly put the beginning of his prophet’s ministry in thememorable thirteenth year of Josiah (625). Winckler assumes that the defence of Nineveh by Madyas occurred at the time when the city was finally 7. Winckler,s destroyed (606), and that the Scythians criticism. were then routed. He correctly ob- In his first homily on the Russian invasion in 865 Photius seems to regard himself as speaking of the same northern people that the prophet had in mind. He no doubt 6. ScYf~bs shared the view of his contemporary Nicetas in Jer. and who in his life of Ignatius, s aks of the Zeph. Ruskians as a Scythian people &vSiv avos h 6pcvo~ ‘Pws), as does also the unknown continuator of Theo3anes’s chronography ; see ‘ De Russorum incursione’ in Lexicon Vindobonense, ed. Nauck, a03 f: and xxiv.f: serves that a parenthesis begins after the statement of the appearance of Madyas, -and concludes that only the beginning of Herodotus’ account (1 ~ojn) and the end of it (1 ra6, end) were drawn from an older source, the remainder being the historian’s own work. But the parenthesis only tells how the Scythians happened to be in Asia, and the narrative manifestly continues with ‘Then the Medes fought with the In modern times, Cramer, Eichhorn, Dahler, Hitzig, Scythians’ in 1104, end. The rest presents only one Ewald, and most recent critics have seen in Jer.4-6 Zeph. 2 original references to the Scythians, though difficulty, which, however, may be satisfactorily met. If the twenty-eight years of Scythian rule fell within admitting subsequent retouching under the impression Cyaxares’ reign (625-585), as 1107 distinctly affirms, of Chaldaean invasions. It has seemed to them im- .they must have extended from 625 to 597; yet the possible that Jeremiah should have feared a Chaldaean capture of Nineveh in 606 is mentioned after the reattack in the thirteenth year of Josiah, whilst the Scythian invasion mentioned by Herodotus (1 103 8) seems to covery of the nations ruled before 625. But the restoration of Media’s former territory is not unnaturhave occurred about that time. In JEREMIAH [BOOK]. 5 20, i., it has been suggested that Chaldzean designs ally mentioned first, even though it had not been fully accomplished before 597, and the important addition of upon Syria may have become apparent already in 625, and that the Scythian army may have contained a Assyria only afterwards with emphasis, though occurring already in 606. There is no evidence that Scythia lost Chaldzean contingent by virtue of the agreement between anything but an ally by the fall of Assyria. If the king Nabopolassar and the Umman Manda prince alluded of the Umman Manda in the Nabu-na’id inscription is to in the Nabuna’id inscription. That view must now Cyaxares, there is no hint in that document of a Scythian be somewhat modified, as Winckler‘s researches have army appearing for the defence of Nineveh in 606. rendered it highly probable that the Umman Manda in Had the Scythian power in Asia Minor been crushed in this case are the Medes, and that there was an alliance between the ASkuza-Scythians and the Assyrians. A prayer to gama:, published by Knudtzon (Assyrische that year, it is not likely that hostilities between Media and Lydia would have been so long deferred. In 597 the two allies, Media and Chaldzea, seem to have made Gebcte, no. 29), mentions the request of Bartatua of a great attack upon the W., Media destroying the ASkuza for a daughter of Esarhaddon. Winckler Scythian power in Armenia and Cappadocia, Chaldzea identifies this chief with Protothyas, father of Madyas, king of the Scythians (Herod. lrog), and reasonably supposes that there was effected an alliance which led humiliating Egypt’s Syrian buffer state, Judah. They were still united when in 586 Nebuchadrezzar put an end to the Judaean kingdom, and the next year secured Madyas to defend Nineveh against Cyaxares. If Madyas was the son of Bartatua who flourished about 675, he is likely to have taken just such a part in the events of 625 as Herodotus indicates. Phraortes had fallen in a battle against the Assyrians 625. To avenge his father, for his ‘helper,’ Cyaxares, an hononrable peace after the battle of the eclipse, Cilicia being then the heir to the position and policy of Scythia. Winckler’s hypothesis apparently makes the distance too great between Madyas and his father Protothyas, and does not sufficiently re- Cyaxares marched against Nineveh and invested the cognise the importance of the political situation in 625. city. It is as natural that he should accept the aid of Nabopolassar as that this Chaldaean usurper shouid be eager to gain an alliance with him by sending an army. In this predicament Madyas came to the aid of Nineveh. The Medes were worsted in the battle, and Such doubts concerning the first siege of Nineveh by Cyaxares and its attendant circumstances (already expressed by We., KZ. Proph.(’) 156P‘), 8. Jerahmeel- 160), questions as to the reliability of ita theory. Jer. 462 (cp JEREMIAH [BOOK], 5 14), the city was saved. Another ally of Cyaxares and and particularly ’ a searching and much-needed criticism Nabopolassar had, however, to be dealt with. Psammetichus had long been encroaching on Assyrian ternof pioper names in MT, finally led Cheyne to look for an invasion from the S. by the Jerahmeelites instigated tory. Since 639 he seems to have laid siege to Ashdod. The Scythians, therefore, went on from Nineveh to invade Egypt. Their ostensible object was further to defend the endangered interests of Assyria. Hence the absence of any record of violence done. Even in the disorders in Ashkelon, it is distinctly stated that the mass of the army took no part, only a few individuals. Such treatment at the hands of Scythians could scarcely be expected. Prophets like Jeremiah and Zephaniah naturally watched their approach as a new scourge in the hand of Yahwb, amply justified by the moral condition of Judah. That these hordes should quietly come and go in peace, having received their tribute from Egypt, they could not dream. This line of conduct finds its by Nebuchadrezzar in the years immediately before 604 (see PROPHETIC LITERATURE, 5 40). The Jerahmeelite theory unquestionably promises to throw much light on the obscure history of the Negeb. That the Arabian neighbours of Egypt, as well as the peoples E. of Judah, should have been inflamed by Nebuchadrezzar is altogether probable ; and that Jeremiah, watching these repeated raids, should have felt behind them the master-hand of the Chaldaean is not incredible. Nor need it be denied that p s has occasionally been uuderstood as ‘the North,’ where, in reality, a place-name was intended. It is even possible that the reports of the prophet‘s earlier speeches have been coloured by the memory of more recent words of his occasioned by such 1 There is nothing in the history of the Hebrew canon that forbids so late a date : see the present writer’s articles on the canon in the Jewish EncycZo @dza and the New Inftrnational EncycZopredia and ‘ &ani;, aniong the Prophets,’ ffi6berf Joum. vol. i. Nor is there any evidence that this appendix already farmed a part of the book that no doubt was translated a generation earlier (preface to Ecclus.). raids by the neighbours. In view, however, of the account by Herodotus of a Scythian invasion of Palestine, following the relief of Nineveh by Madyas, the suggestion in a cuneiform letter of a Scytho-Assyrian alliance already in the time of Bartatua-Protothyas, the occasion for Scythian interference in the accession of 4333 4334
Page 1: SCRIP SCYTHIANS like the Scribes re
Page 5 and 6: SCYTHIANS SCYTHIANS Tabiti (‘Iun
Page 7 and 8: SEA CALVES SEDECIAS for the priests
Page 9 and 10: SELA-HAMMAHLEKOTH SELAH the land of
Page 11 and 12: SELEUCIDB SELEUCIDA an emblem of di
Page 13 and 14: SELEUCIDA SEILEUCIDA Pelusium and o
Page 15 and 16: SELEUCIDE SELEUCIDE Syrian suzerain
Page 17 and 18: SEM SENNACHERIB After the defeat of
Page 19 and 20: SENNACHERIB SENNACHERIB Babylonia.
Page 21 and 22: SENUAH SEPHARAD tended was Seti (th

sefi;g:v. - A Kabbalist walks into a bar, and the

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?