Associate professor of church history princeton theological seminary baker book house

Laws not the result of conservatism and insist 

New. ence on class rights and privileges,

and again as evidently modifications of nomadic custom. Yet the stage of advance is indicated by the facts that the era of blood revenge is past and that capital punishment is in the hand of the State except in the two cases of violent entry and looting at a conflagration. Another sign of the advanced stage is the protection afforded both to the person and to property, especially in the case of commercial transactions. The developed law might indeed be expected when it was remembered that the processes of justice were implied as in operation at least 2,300 years earlier, when the name of a judge is given on a tablet. Both Sargon and Naram Sin spoke of public justice, and Gudea named courts of law. That the code is gentler than earlier practise appears manifest, its processes and penalties being on the whole less savage than the custom code of contemporary peoples. Thus H appears as a register of progress; and this is the more noteworthy when there is taken into account the fact that it is only a code, not a pandect. Many of the provisions have the appearance of being

rather examples of procedure than ample statutes for all possibilities. The general trend of opinion among Assyriologists is that H is but the conse­quence of the centralization of power by a strong and keen eyed systematizer. The same grouping of factors appears in the administration of the em­pire as in this collection of statutes.

It was inevitable, in view of the discussion of Babylonian influence upon Hebrew life and litera­ture, that as soon as the code was discovered, com­parison should be made with M. It 6. Relation was found that a number of laws were to Pentateu  almost exact reproductions or parallels, chal Codes. there were many others in which there was an identity of principle but dif­ference in detail of treatment, still others showing sharp contrast in principle and treatment, while whole groups of laws in one are not represented in the other. In accounting for these facts students find themselves in one of three positions. Since H is indisputably the older, if either is.dependent on the other, M must be the derived code. Ac­cordingly some, emphasizing the influence of Baby­lonia on the West, derived parts of M at a late period from H. Others attribute the similarities in M to transmission from Abraham who had received the laws in Ur. A third view is that the similarities are best explained by regarding both codes as national developments under different en­vironment from a common stock of Semitic cus­tom. A decision is made more difficult because the Hebrew legislation is of at least three different periods, the early kingdom (Ex. xx. xxiii. 20), the seventh century B.c. (Deuteronomy), and the Exile or later (the Priest Code). Complicating the situa­tion is the brevity of the earliest code, affording but few grounds of comparison. Moreover, the data obtained by comparison of the longer M codes are claimed by all three parties as favoring their indi­vidual contentions. Representative facts are, the following:

Correspondence exists in the case of assault upon a betrothed maiden (130; Deut. xxii. 25), of a slave concubine who had borne children (146; Deut. xxi. 14), of adultery with a daughter in law, betrothed or married (155 156; Ex. xxii. 16 17; Lev. xx. 12; Deut. xxii. 28), of false witness (3; Dent. xix. 19), of kidnapping (14; Ex. xxi. 16), witchcraft (1; Ex. xxii. 18), and of violence to a pregnant woman (109 114; Ex. xxi. 22). The laws of deposit differ only in detail (100 107; Ex. xxii. 7 15). Diver­gences are that according to H a man may pledge his wife, son or daughter for payment of a debt for three years only, in M for six years (117; Ex. xxi. 2; Deut. xv. 12). In H no provision is made for absolute release of a slave pledged for debt; in M there was a jubilee release, though whether that was more than theoretical is one of the debated ques­tions. The careful provisions.in H, on pain of for­feiture, for witnesses to deposits, loans, or property given or entrusted for purposes of trade or in barter or sale are lacking in M (122, 123). The actual ordeal by water is in H alone (2,123), though the oath (which is an ordeal and one of the most com­mon) is used by both. Necessarily a series of pre­scriptions with reference to lands let on feudal ten 

RELIGIOUS

ENCYCLOPEDIA

8ammuraM and His Code

Samyden

ure is in H alone; similar are those sections which

deal with the features of the country peculiar to

Babylonia, such as the canals and the care of them.

The probability seems to be in favor, therefore,

of the position that while in the earlier code of M

nothing beyond the most general influence of Baby­

lonian culture is evident, in the later codes that

influence was intensified; but direct borrowing is

yet to be shown as the true solution of the agree­

ments. Indeed the later codes of M seem to show

a knowledge of H or its equivalent of the time by

avoiding the specific treatment and substituting

that more in accordance, with its own genius. The

correspondences are as close, though not as nu­

merous, in the earliest code of M, where the theory

of direct borrowing is hardly tenable. The agree­

ment of the later codes of M with H are generally

of the same kind as that of the earliest and in the

same class of cases. GEO. W. GmnsoRm
BIBLIOGRAPHY: On Hammurabi, beside the literature given under BABYLONIA, consult: L. W. King, Letters and In­wriptiona of Hammurabi, 3 vols., London, 1898 1901 (vol. iii. is the translation; as a source this series of letters is of the first rank); M. W. Montgomery, Bride aus der Zeit des . . . Hammurabi, Leipsic, 1901; G. Nagel, Die Bride Hammurabia an Sin iddinam, in BeW4ge cur As­syriolopie, iv. 434 483, Leipsic, 1902; T. G. Pinches, The Old Testament in the Light of the Historical Records of Assyria and Babylonia, London, 1902; W. St. C. Bos­eawen, First of Empires, pp. 162 263, ib. 1903 (has also a tranal. and study of the Code); D. H. Miiller, in Zeit­schrift far die %unde des Morgenlandee, xvii (1903 04), 337 342; W. H. Ward, Who was Hammurabif in The Century, lxvi (1903), 454 460.

The literature on the Code is voluminous, the follow­ing are the most important contributions: V. Scheil, D& Uyation en Pores. MEmoiree publics sous la direction de M. J. de Morgan, vol. iv., Textes _*lamitiquss s6mitiques, deuxi~me s&ie, Paris, 1902 (the editio princeps of the Code, in photogravure, transliteration and translation; a magnificent volume); idem, La Loi de Hammourabi, ib. 1903; S. A. Cook, Laws of Moses and the Code of Ham­muraN, London, 1903 (full, but lacks the desideratum of clearness); H. Grimme, Das Geseb Chammurabis and Moses, Cologne, 1903, Eng. tranel., London, 1907; J. Jeremiae, Moses and Hammurabi, Leipsic, 1903 (notes con­nections of the codes); C. W. H. Johns, Oldest Code of Laws in the World, Edinburgh, 1903 (very brief); E. KSnig, in Die Grenzboten, lxii (1903), 59703; S. Oettli, Das Gesetz Hammurabis and die Thora, Leipsic, 1903; H. Winekler, in Der Alto Orient, ib. 1903 (with brief notes); idem, Die Gesetze Hammurabis in Umechrift and Ueberaetzung, Leipeie, 1904; R. D. Wilson, in Princeton Theological Review, Apr., 1903, pp. 239 255 (philological); Dareste, in Journal des Savants, 1903, pp. 517 528, 586­596; R. F. Harper, Code of Hammurabi . . autographed Text, Transliteration, Glossary, Index, . , • Chicago, 1904 (as a source second only to Scheil's edition); E. Bests, in Rivista IM. de sociologica, viii (1904), 179 236; S. Daichee, in Zeitachrift far Asayriolegie, xviii (1904), 202­222; D. O. Dykes, in Juridical Review, xvi (1904), 72­85 (from a lawyer's point of view); C. Edwards, The Hammurabi Code and the Sinaitie Legislation, London, 1904; A. H. Godbey, in Reformed Church Review, viii (1904), 469; D. G. Lyon, in JAGS, xxv. (1904'), part 2, pp. 248 274; G. E. Vincent, in American Journal et So­ciology, ix (1904), 737 754; P. Berger, in Grande Revue, 1905, vol ii. 23 48; Hammurabi and Moses, Cincinnati, 1905; O.,B. Jenkins, in American Law Review, xxxix (1905), 330 341; J. A. Kelso, in Princeton Theological Review, iii. (1905), 399 412; W. T. Pilter, The Law of Hammurabi and of Moses, London, 1907; M. Schorr, Altbabylonische Rechtsurkunden aus der Zeit der eraten babylonischen Dynastic (2800 2100 B.C.), Vienna, 1907; M. Flugel, The Humanity, Benevolence, and Charity Legis­lation of the Pentateuch and the Talmud in Parallel with the Laws of Hammurabi, the Doctrine of Egypt, the Roman %11 Tables, and Modern Codes, Baltimore, 1908; C.

M. Cobern, in Methodist Review, da:xvi. 696 703; G. Cohn, Gesetw Hammurabia, Zurich, 1903 (compares the Code with the old German laws); MOller, in Jahresbericht der iaraeY itisch theologiachen Lehrarbdalt, Vienna, 1903 (compares the Code with the twelve Roman tables). An excellent dis­cussion by C. H. W. Johns may be found in DB, extra vol., pp. 584 612. Further literature is given in C. F. Kent, Student's Old Testament, iv. 280, New York, 1907.

HAMON, JEAN: French physician and moralist; b. at Cherbourg 1618; d. at Port Royal Feb. 22, 1687. He studied medicine in Paris and quickly attained a prominent position in his profession. In 1651 he sold all his property, except his books, dis­tributed the proceeds among the poor, and sought a life of penitence and solitude at Port Royal. He continued the practise of his profession among the poor of the country, administering to them both medicine and spiritual advice. He wrote a number of works, of which the most important are: Traitds de piiW (2 vols., Paris, 1675); Sur la pri&e et lee devoirs des paateurs (2 vols., 1689); Pratique de la pri&e continuelle (1702); and Explication du Can­tiqlte des Cantiques (4 vols., 1708).

BIBLIOGRAPHY: The most complete Life is in J. Beeoigne, Histoire de 1'abbaye de Port Royal, vol. iv., 6 vole., Paris, 1752 53. Consult also: Charles Beard, Port Royal, ii. 423 aqq., London, 1861; Lichtenberger, ESR, vi. 78  80.

HAMPDEN, RENN DICKSON: Bishop of Here­ford; b. in Barbados Mar. 29, 1793; d. in London Apr. 23, 1868. He was sent to England in 1798 and entrusted to the care of the Rev. M. Rowlandson, vicar of Warminster, Wiltshire, by whom he was educated till 1810, when he entered Oriel College, Oxford (B.A., 1814; M.A., 1816; B.D. and D.D., 1833). At Oriel, where he became a fellow in 1814, Thomas Arnold and Richard Whately were among his intimate friends, and Keble, Pusey, and Haw­kins were among his colleagues. After his ordi­nation in 1816 he filled in succession the curacies of Newton, Blaydon, Faringdon, Hungerford, and Haley. Afterward he engaged in literary pur­suits in London. He was appointed tutor in Oriel College in 1828, principal of St. Mary's Hall in 1833, professor of moral philosophy in 1834, and in 1836 canon of Christ Church and regius professor of divinity. Owing to alleged heretical views ex­pressed by Hampden in his Bampton lectures in 1832 this last appointment was bitterly opposed by the High church party. The main point urged against him was his statement that the authority of the Scriptures is of greater weight than the authority of the Church. During the ensuing con­troversy some forty five books or pamphlets were published. As regius professor he held the living. of Ewelme from 1836 to 1847. On Dec. 28, 1847, he was elected bishop of Hereford, and was con­secrated on Mar. 26, 1848, despite the remonstrance of,thirtsen bishops. He led an exemplary life, and in no way did he ever refer to the attacks of which he was the object. Aside from his sermons and charges his principal works are: An Essay on the Philosophical Evidence of Christianity (London, 1827); The Scholastic Philosophy Considered in its Relation to Christian Theology (Oxford, 1833), Bampton lectures for 1832; and The Fathers of Greek Philosophy (1862).

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Henrietta Hampden, Some Memorials of R. D. Hampden, London, 1871 (by his daughter); G. V.

Hampton Court Conference Handicrafts, Hebrew

THE NEW SCHAFF HERZOG

Cox, Recollections of Oxford, pp. 284 271, ib. 1871; T. Motley, Reminiscences, chiefly of Oriel College, pp. 850­386, ib. 1882; DNB, xxiv. 264 286.

HAMPTON COURT CONFERENCE: A meeting called by James I. of England at Hampton Court Palace (15 m. w.s.w. of London) in 1604 for the discussion of differences between the Puritans and the High church party. It was occasioned by certain petitions from the Puritans, particularly the " Millenary Petition " (q.v.), which was presented to James while he was on the way to London in Apr., 1603. The conference met on Jan. 14, 16, and 18. James, who presided, was supported by Arch­bishop Whitgift, eight bishops, seven deans, and two other clergy. The petitioners were represented by four Puritans of moderate views, John Reyn­olds, president of Corpus Christi College, Oxford; Laurence Chaderton, master of Emmanuel College, Cambridge; Thomas Sparks and John Knewetubs,  all of James's own selection. After the king had spent the first day in the discussion of various topics with his supporters, the four Puritan representa­tives were admitted to the second day's conference, and Reynolds, as spokesman, was allowed to pre­sent their grievances. He brought forward four headings: (1) purity of doctrine; (2) the ministry; (3) the reform of church government, and (4) the amendment of the Book of Common Prayer. He asked the incorporation of the nine Lambeth Articles (q.v.) with the Thirty Nine Articles, demanded an enlargement of the catechism and a new transla­tion of the Bible, presented the objections of the Puritans to the Book of Common Prayer, and in­sisted on the need of a preaching ministry. When he came to speak of disciplinary questions an un­fortunate use of the word " presbytery " threw James into such a rage that he broke up the con­ference for the day. On the third day of the con­ference James met his clergy, with whom were now associated the leading ecclesiastical lawyers, and later called in the Puritan representatives to hear his decision. The old ceremonies were to continue; there was to be no provision for a preaching minis­try; and the existing church order was to be upheld. The following changes very unsatisfactory to the Puritans were made in the Prayer book: mention of baptizing of infants by women was omitted; in the rubric of absolution was inserted " remission of sins "; confirmation was termed " laying on of hands "; all the thanksgivings, except the general one, were inserted; to the catechism was annexed the whole of the latter portion relative to the two sacraments; and some words were altered in the lessons. Reynolds' request for anew translation of the Bible bore fruit in the so called Authorized Version, by far the most important result of the conference. See PuluTAxs, PinelTAlvlsM, 1 15.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: T. Fuller, Church Hist. of Britain, book x., section i., London, 1837; W. Clark, The Anglican Re%r­mation, pp 364 sqq, New York, 1897; J. H. Overton, The Church in England, ii. 4 sqq., ib. 1897; W. H Frere, The English Church (1668 1686), pp. 198 sqq, ib. 1904; F. Procter and W. H. Frere A New Hiat. of the Book o/ Common Prayer, pp. 137 140 et passim, ib. 1305.

HANDELI GEORGE FREDERICK (properly GEORG FRIEDRICH HAENDEL): Musician and composer; b. at Halls, Prussia, Feb. 23, 1685; d. in

140

London Apr. 14, 1759. At the age of seven he was a skilful performer on the piano and organ, and at nine he began to compose music. In 1702, in obe­dience to his father's wishes, he began the study of law at the University of Halle, but the following year he abandoned law for music and accepted a position as violinist in the orchestra of the opera­house at Hamburg. Here his first two operas, Almira and Nero, were produced early in 1705. Two other early operas, Daphne and Florindo, were produced at Hamburg in 1708. During the years 1707 09 Handel traveled and studied in Italy. His Rodrigo was produced at Florence in 1707, and his Agrippina at Venice in 1708. Two oratorios, La Resurrezione and ll Trionfo del Tempo, were produced at Rome in 1709 and 1710, respectively. In 1710 Handel became Kapellmeister to George, elector of Hanover, afterward George I. of England. He visited London in 1710 and settled there per 

t manently in 1712, receiving a yearly income of £200 from Queen Anne. He was director of the Royal Academy of Music 1720 28, and a partner of J. J. Heidegger in the management of the King's Theatre 1729 34. He gave up operatic manage­ment entirely in 1740, after he had lost a fortune in the business. In 1751 he became blind. He was buried in Westminster Abbey.

Handel's compositions include some fifty operas, twenty three oratorios, and a large amount of church music, not to speak of his instrumental pieces. Though his operas were superior to those of his contemporaries, they have now been sup6r­seded and largely forgotten, with the exception of certain detached arias. It is upon his oratorios that his fame rests. It was his peculiar service to create and perfect the oratorio; and in this field he is still supreme. His best known oratorios are: Esther (1720); Saul (1739); Israel in Egypt (1739); The Messiah (1742); Samson (1743); Judas Macca­bceus (1747); and Jephthah (1752). His works were edited by S. Arnold (40 vole., London, 1786), and more recently by F. Chrysander, for the German Handel Gesellschaft (100 vols., Leipsic, 1859 94). See Music, SACRED.

BIBLIOa8APH7: The best early biography is by J Main­waring, Memoirs of the Life of . . . George Frederick Hander, London 1760. Consult further: W. S. Rock­etro, Life of Handel ed. G. Grove, London, 1883; E. B. B. Ramsay, Lachaw on the Genius of Handel, ib. 1862; F. Crowest The Great Tone Poets, ib. 1881; A. Reise­. Georg Friedrich Handel, sein Leben and seine Works, Berlin, 1882; Mrs. J. Marshall, Handel in Great Musicians Series, London, 1883; C. E. Bourne, The Great Composers, ib. 1888; J. C. Hadden, Handel, ib. 1888; L. Engel, From Handel to Hall, ib. 1890; J. F. Row­botham Private Life of the Great Composers, New York, 1893; F. Volbach, Georg Friedrich Handel, Berlin, 1898; C. L. A. Williams, Handel, London, 1901; W. H. Cum­mings, Handel, ib. 1904; S. Taylor, The Indebtedness of Handel to Wors of Other Composers, Cambridge, 1908.

HANDICRAFTS, HEBREW.

The Beginnings Q 1) Pottery U 5)

Developed by City Life. Gilds The Stone Cutter (§ 6).

Metal Working (¢ 3). W Carpenter (§ 7).

Weaving (¢ 8).

The Goldsmith (§ 4). Other Trades (¢ 9).

Handicraft was for the ancients a gift of God like all other knowledge, so that the Israelites naturally placed its origin in the very earliest ages of hu 

manity (Gen. iv. 17, 22). In the Code of Ham­

murabi (see HAmmuRABi "D His CODE) mention

is made of fully developed gilds in

i. The Babylonia, and doubtless Syria and

Begin  Palestine also possessed them. It is

nings. probable that the Israelites, however,

in their nomadic period had only the

most elementary knowledge of, perhaps, metal­

working and the dressing of leather. The later

theory according, to which the Israelites in the

time of their wanderings in the desert were already

skilled craftsmen (Ex. xxv. and following chapters)

is altogether erroneous. Even after their settle­

ment in Palestine their progress in this respect was

slow. Baking, spinning, weaving, and the sewing

of garments were for a long time the work of the

housewife; the husband knew how to tan leather

and to make leather bottles, sandals, and straps;

he could also build his simple dwelling and carve

his wooden tools. Only metal working and pottery

appear to have been special trades from the earliest

times.

With the consolidation of the kingdom of Israel under David and Solomon, the Israelites gained access to the cities of the Canaanites 2. Developed and became familiar with their civi­by City Life. lization. Greater prosperity naturally

Gilds. brought greater requirements, and

special trades were developed for their

satisfaction. Above all city life both required and

permitted a specialization of labor. In the cities

the artisans were grouped together in the bazaars

according to their trades. In the rural districts the

artisan went from place to place in the exercise of

his trade. The maker of agricultural implements

wandered from village to village; the goldsmith

went to the house of his customer; the armorer

always traveled about. The gathering of the work­

men in gilds and the transmission of their art

from father to son took place in the same way as in

Babylonia; the organization was that of the family.

In the time of Nehemiah the gilds were put upon the

same plane as the great families (Neh. iii. 8). The

First Book of Chronicles (iv. 14, 21, 23) names the

gilds of the carpenters, byssus weavers, and potters,

who lived in separate localities. Usually people of

the same trade lived in the same place potters in

Gaza"and Ramleh; soap boilers in Nablus.

Metal working was already well known to the Babylonians about 3000 s.c. Their weapons were always of bronze or of copper, hard 

3. Metal  ened by an alloy of tin. Since copper

Working. is found in Lebanon and was brought

thence to the Babylonians, it is not

surprising that bronze arrow  and lace heads,

axes, knives, chisels, and nails, dating from about

2000 B.c. and later, have been found in Gaza, Me­

giddo, and Taanach. Iron, on the other hand, was

known to the Canaanites and Babylonians only

from about 1000 B.c., and it only gradually took

the place of bronze. When the " iron " chariots

of the Canaanites are mentioned, the writer had in

mind the conditions of his own time; chariots

sheathed with bronze must be meant. According

to the results of the excavations and to the Biblical

accounts, bronze was the metal most in use during

RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA

Hampton Court Conferenoe Handicrafts, Hebrew

the earlier years of the monarchy. Helmet, shield, breast plate, greaves, and sword are of bronze (I Sam. xvii. 5 7; II Sam. xxii. 35). Goliath's iron spear head is remarked as something unusual (I Sam. xvii. 7). Only later is there frequent men­tion of iron, as of doors sheathed with iron and iron bolts (Isa. xlv. 2), breast plates (Job xx. 24), axes, and hatchets (Deut. xix. 5, xxvii. 5). The ore came from Lebanon (cf. Jer. xv. 12), and furnaces for its smelting are mentioned (Deut. iv. 20; Jer. xi. 4; I Kings viii. 51). The Israelites did not advance as far as the casting of iron. For artistic work only bronze was used (cf. the vessels of Solo­mon's Temple, I Kings vii. 13 eqq.).

The Phenicians always had a, kind of monopoly of the fabrication of vases, dishes, etc., and it can

not be determined in the case of such 4. The Gold  objects whether they were made by

smith. the Israelites or were brought from

Phenicia. The same may be said of

ornaments and other objects made of the precious

metals. The goldsmith (zoreph) is often mentioned.

That the people were familiar with his work is

shown by the metaphors referring to this craft used

by the prophets, such as the melting of gold in the

crucible, its purification with alkaline salt (bor, Isa.

i. 25), soldering (Isa. xli. 7), polishing, and the like.

Hammer and anvil, tongs and chisel, crucible and

bellows, and especially the graver are the gold­

smith's tools. The art of appliqud in gold was in

great favor. Idols formed of wood or metal and

overlaid with gold were much fancied (Isa. xxx. 22;

II Hings :viii. 16). The golden calves of Dan and

Bethel were probably made in this style (I Kings xii.

28). Fine gold thread was also produced to be in­

terwoven in costly garments (Ex. xxviii. 6). Gold

was brought from southern Arabia (Ophir, Havilah,

etc.) by the Sabeana (Ezek. xxvii. 22).

Information concerning the potter's art is quite full through the rich results of the excavations at

Tell el Hesy. From about 1400 B.c. 5. Pottery. can be traced the influence exercised

by the art of Mycenee, through the medium of Phenicians from Cyprus, upon the rude art of the Canaanites. This appears in the en­graved and stamped patterns, consisting of wave lines, crosses, straight lines, curves, etc., and also in the painted decorations in the style of,,Mycenw; geometric figures (circles, wave lines, etc.) and rep­resentations of birds and ibexes, all executed in the very best manner. In the early Israelitic period Phenician influence is dominant both in the form and in the style of decoration. Later, about 700 B.c., Greek influence asserts itself and brilliant yellowish brown or black ware is found, usually decorated with concentric circles. It is, of course, difficult to determine what was made by the Israel­ites in their villages and what was brought in by Phenician merchants, but it is known that the Israelites quickly assimilated this art. The proph­ets took their metaphors from the potter's art, and they speak of kneading the clay (Jer.xviii.6),which was trodden by the feet (Isa. xli. 25), and of the potter's wheel, upon which the vessel was formed (Jer. xviii. 3). This wheel, as its name (obhnayim, dual) indicates, consisted of two disks, which re 

Handicrafts. $e1reW Hannington

THE NEW SCHAFF HERZOG

volved one above the other. It was worked by the feet (Ecclus. xxxviii. 29).

The stone cutter (hhdrash ebhen) was also a builder. He undertook the entire construction of the house.

As is shown by the excavations, the 6. The dwelling houses were always small Stone  huts, with walls made of mud bricks

Cutter. or of unhewn stones roughly built up;

even in the principal cities walls built of hewn stones were rare. As tools of the stone­cutter, in addition to the hammer and chisel, the level (II Kings xxi. 13; Heb. mish4xleth, Eng. ver­sions, " line "), the line (Isa. xxviii. 17, and else­where), and the plummet (Amos vii. 7) are men­tioned.

The carpenter (1 Crash `e;) is entrusted with the fabrication of all wooden articles for the household,

and also plows, threshing carts, win­7. The Car  nowing shovels, and the like. Some

penter. were able to execute fine work and

carved images of the gods (cf. Isa. xl. 20, xliv.13 14). They worked with saws (Isa. x.15), axes, and hatchets (Deut. xix. 5), planes (Isa. xliv. 13), hammers (Isa. xliv.12), and compasses (Isa. xliv. 13); line and rule are also mentioned (Isa. xliv. 13).

Weaving was mostly done at home; finer fabrics were brought from abroad. The oldest method of

weaving is still used by the Bedouins; 8. Weaving. threads are stretched lengthwise along

the ground and the cross thread is pushed through with the fingers; the web is pushed together with a wooden reed. The Egyptians had two kinds of looms, and they were also known in Palestine. In the Middle Empire the loom is hori­zontal, the beams are fastened to the ground, and the weavers crouch down in working. This kind of loom is suggested in the story of Samson, where Delilah weaves his hair into the warp while he sleeps (Judges xvi. 13 14). In the New Empire the loom is upright; above and below are Stationary beams; the weavers stood and wove from the bottom up­ward. Greek sources present a third kind of loom, in which the long threads of the warp hung from a beam above, held taut by stones attached to the ends; in this loom the weaving was from above downward. Many such stones have been found in the excavations, and suffice to show that this type of loom existed in Palestine. As early as ancient Egyptian looms, the shifting of the even and un­even threads of the warp, which must lie alternately above and below the woof, was accomplished as follows: the uneven threads were bound by strings to a stick so that they could be lifted up together; the thread of the woof was fastened to another stick and pushed through the warp. How early the shuttle (Job vii. 6) came into use, is not known. Variegated garments, striped or checked, were ad­mired by the Israelites and in Syria generally.

It is only by chance that the tanners and dyers are not mentioned among other artisans in the Old

Testament. Bakers are found only in 9. Other the cities, in the country baking being

Trades. done at home. The fullers have a cer 

tain importance, but also a bad repute. They made woolen fabrics waterproof by felting the wool and also cleaned old clothes. They were forced

142

to exercise their trade outside of the city of Jerusa­lem on account of the bad odors produced and be­cause a good supply of water was needed (Isa. vii. 3).

1. BENZINGER.