Shewbread

'Shewhread,' formed apparently on the pattern of Luther's Schaubrot, is the tr. , first adopted by Tindale, of the Heb. D-)p(n) cnji ' bread of the presence [of J"],' of which, accord- infrly, the more correct tr. is that proposed by RVra, viz. ' presence-bread.' It has been usual hitherto to assign the introduction of the terra 'shewbread' to Coverdale (see, e.g.

, Phinimcr's Luke, 167), But it is found as early as 1626 in Tindale's New Testa- ment, He 02 ' and the shewe breed which is called wholy ' (Offor'B feprint). Curiously enouph, Tindale not only uses other render- ings in the Gospels (' the halowed loves,' Mt"l2', Mk 2-i ; loves of halowed breed,' Lk 6), but retains the same inconsistency in his reviseil e<iition of 1534, after he had adopted 'shewbred' in his Pentateuch of 1530.

In the latter on its lirst occurrence (Ex 263") he adds the marpnal note : ' Shewbrod, because it was ftlwa^ in the presence and sight of the Lorde ' (see Mombert's repnnt, in he,), Wyclif had naturally followed the Vulgate (•ee below) with 'breed of proposicioun.'

The Protestant translators and revisers who succeeded Tindale |^ve ' shew- bread ' in OT, ' shewe loves,' ' shewbreads,' and ' sbewbread ' in NT, the last by the end of the 16th cent, being firmly estab- lished in both Testaments (the Itheims version, however, retain- ing * loaves of proposition '). L NosiENCLATTJHE. — On the occasion of the ear- liest historical mention of tlie presence, bread (0'jf,T nnS 1 S 21» (h«1' 'D it is nl.

so termed ' holy bread ' (ch^ onS ib, »• •• («• 1 KV ; AV ' hallowed bread '). The former terra is that used through- out the Priests' Code (P) of the Pentateuch, with the addition of the name ' continual bread ' (TSB "i Nil 4'" ; cf. ' bread ' only Ex 40-^). In the post-exilic period we meet with another desig- nation, viz. ' the pile-bread ' (n;-iy^i:rr on^ 1 Ch 9^- 23^, Neh I0», but with the terms reversed 2 Ch 13", cf. He 9- ; also nDivo alone 2 Ch 2').

This name is due to the fact that the loaves were arranged upon the table in two ])iles (n^D-i;;?? Lv 24 ; this, the rendering of RVm, suits the facts better than the ' rows ' of the text of EV). The tr. varies considerably in the Gr. versions, the most literal rendering of the older designation is iproi ToD irpoawTTou 1 S 21, 2 Es 20^ (hut cf. Aquila's &p. TrpoautTruv), &p. ivuiwioi Ex 25^, ol &p. ol irpoKti^iivoi Ex 39'* ; elsewhere most frequently &p. tt)?

tt/jo- Biatui, ' loaves of the setting forth.' This, the term used in the Gospels (Mt 12, Mk 2=«, Lk Q), reflects the later Hebrew designation above men- tioned (cf. TrportO^vau in LXX to render rtTj ' to set in order,' ' set forth ' [a meal upon a table]). The variant tj TpiBttrit t. ipruiv (He U'^) follows 2 Ch 13", 2 Mac IC)". Still another rendering, o! 4p. ttj^ Trpexr- 00005, is confined to some MSS of the Greek of 1 K ■7 (Lucian has irpoBicriwt).

The Vulgate also re- flects botli the Hebrew designations with panis fariemm (cf. Aquila, above) and panis proposi- tionia. The table of shewbread has likewise in Hebrew a twofold nomenclature : in P cijn jnSc* ' the pres- ence-table ' (Nu 4'), but in Chronicles r;"iv,'SC "'=' (2 Ch 29") ; in both we also find ^^^5;n "d ' the pure table' (Lv 24", 2 Ch 13"), proljably because over- laid with pure cold. For other designations now disguised in M'T see next section. ii.

The Shewbread in the Pre-exilic Period. — The earliest historical mention of the shewbread occurs in the account of David's flight from Saul, in which he secures for his young men, under conditions that are somewhat obscure, the use of the shewbread from the sanctuary at NoB (1 S SI"-). It is here described, as we have seen, both as 'presence-bread' (v.'l^)) and as ' holy ' or 'sacred bread' (vv.*- 'I'-l), in opposition to ordi- • Codox BeziB (D) has w^trhewt, with which comp.

rfio^riOtim for wg*t,6. In some MSS of the LXX (paMim), See for I)"b read- ing. Nestle, Introd, to Text, Criticiim of Or, JVr(lOOl), 287. nary or unconsecratcd bread (Sin). The incident appears to have happened on the day on which the loaves were removed to be replaced by fresli or ' hot bread ' (en cnV v." PI).

It must not be inferred from this narrative that the regu- lation of the Priests' Code, by which the stale shewbread was the exclusive perquisite of the priests, was already in force, although this, naturally, is the standpoint of NT times (see Mt 12* and paralls.) Ahimelech, in requiring and receiving the assurance that David's young men were ceremonially ' clean ' (see art. Uncleanxess), seems to have taken all the precautions then deemed necessary.

The narrative is further of value as giving us a clear indication of the meaning originally attaching to the expression ' presence-bread,' for the loaves are here e> pressly said to have been ' removed frojn tfte presence c/ J'' (" -jdV? onyisn MT, v.7 ; cf. the similar expression Ex 2530). We next meet with the rite in connexion witli Solomon's temple, among the furniture of which ia mentioned in our present text ' the table where- upon the shewbread was' (1 K 7** RV).

This table is here further said to have been ' of gold,' by which we are to understand from the context ' of solid gold' (cf. Ex 25-* in LXX, and .Josephus' [Ant. Vlll. iii. 7] description of the temple).

But it is well known that in this section of the Book of Kings the original narrative has been overlaid with accretions of all sorts, mostly, if not entirely, post-exilic ; these are due to the idea of this later time, that the interior decoration of Solomon's temple, and the materials of its furniture, could in no respect have been inferior to those of the tabernacle of P.

See Stade's classical essay, ' Der Text des Berichtes ueber SaJomo's Bauten,' in ZATW, 1883, 129-177, reproduced in his Akacl. Reden u, Abhandlungen (1899), 143fl'. Stade's results have been accepted in the main by all recent scholars. Thus he .shows that the original of 1 K e^""- -' i)robiibly read somewhat as is still given in the middle clause of the better Gr. text of A {^iroiTjaev dvaiatrrripLOv KiSpov , . , Kara Trpuffwirov rod Sa^lp), viz.

T3in '}t^ i-jk n;ip fvn 'and he ) Solomon] made an altar of cedar-wood (to stand) in front of the sanctuary (the 'Holy of Holies' o'f P).' Whether we should retain or discard the words ' and overlaid it with gold,' is of minor import- ance.* The altar, therefore, of v.20b {s not to be understood of the altar of incense, which first appears in the latest stratum of P (see Tabernacli'.), but, as in the passage of Ezekiel presently to be considered, of the table of sliewbread.

The express mention of the latter by name in 1 K 7*3'' is also part of an admitte<lly Ute addition to the original text (see authorities cited in foot- note). The same desire to enhance the glory of the Solomonic temple is usually assigned as the ground for the tradition fol- lowed by the Chronicler, who states that Solomon provided the necessary gold for ten tables of shewbread (I Ch 2816; cf. 2 Ch 48.

16), This writer, however, is not consistent, for elsewhere we read of 'the ordering of the shewbread upori the pure table (2 Oh 1311),' In his account, further, of the cleansmg of the temple under Hczckiah, only * the tablf of shewbread, with all the vessels thereof ' is mentioned (ib. '^iOi"^),— a view of the case which is undoubtedly to be regarded as alone In accordance with the facte of history.

This table fell a prey to the (lames which con- sumed the temple in the 19th year of Nebu- chadrezzar (2 K 25", Jer 52"). The tale related by the Byzantine chronicler (Synccllus, 409), that it was among the furniture concealed by Jeremiah on Mount Pisgah, is but a later addition to the earlier form of the same fable, which we already find in 2 Mac 2'"-. Notwithstanding these un- certainties, the continuance of the rite under the monarchy is sullicicntly assured. iii. The Post-kxilic Period.

— Ezekiel in his sketch of the ideal sanctuary likewise contem- plates the perpetuation of the rite, for in a passage of his booK, which on all hands is regarded as See besides Stade. op, cit., the Commentaries of Klttel and Bcnzinger, esp, the latter's Introduction, p. xviff., where an intiTesting study will be fotind of the gradual growth of the accretions with which I Kiil"-*! is now overgrown ; also Humey'l art. Kings in the present work, vol. il.

m;i\ and his Holes 'on the Ucbrew Text oj the Books of Kings, in toe. 496 SHEWBREAD SHEWBREAD corrupt, but capable with the help of the LXX of easy emendation, we read thus (as emended) : ' In front of the sanctuary [this also=P'3 'Holy of Holies'] was something liUe an altar of wood, three cubits in hei;L;ht, and the len<;th thereof two cubits, and the breadth two cubits ; and it had corners, and its base and its sides were of wood.

And he said unto me : This is the table that is before J" ' (Ezk 41-'- — ; so substantially Comill and all recent commentators). Here, then, we have not the altar of incense, but once more the table of shewbread. The twofold circumstance that it is here expressly termed an altar, and is of plain wood without a gold covering, is a strong argument in favour of Stade's restoration of the text of 1 K, discussed above.

Ezekiel's table of shewbread resembled in its general outline the similar altar- tables so often seen on the Assyrian monuments (see last section) ; its height was half as much again as its length, and in section it formed a square of at least 3 ft. in the side. The projec- tions or ' horns ' were, no doubt, similar to those of the Assyrian altars (see, e.g., Perrot and Chipiez, History of Art in Chaldca and Assyria, i. pp. 143, 255, etc. ).

In the temple of Zerubbabel, consecrated in the 6th year of Darius (B.C. 516), the table of shew- bread, we may safely infer, had its place in the outer sanctuary, although we have no information as to whether or not it was modelled on Ezekiel's altar-table.

After the introduction of the Priests' Code it may have been remodelled according to the instructions there given (Ex 2o'-"'-); we may at least, with some measure of certainty, suppose that it was then overlaid with gold, since Antiochus Epiphanes, when he carried off the spoils of the temple (1 Alac 1"), would scarcely have taken the trouble to remove a plain wooden altar.

The well- informed author of 1 Maccabees, in the passage cited, includes among the spoils not only the table itself, but ' the flagons and chalices and censers of gold ' used in the ritual of the table (see for these art. Tabernacle, section on Table of Shewbread). The provision of the shewbread, it should be added, was one of the objects to which were de- voted the proceeds of the tax of one-third of a shekel instituted by Nehemiah (10*', cf. Jos. Ant. III. X. 7, § 255).

Here atteDtion may b« called to two non-canonical Jewish writers who allude to the subject of this article. The earlier of the two is pseudo-Hccatit-us, whose date is usually assumed to be the Rri cent. B.C. (Schiirer, GJV iii. 465 ; but Willrich, Juden u. Griechen, etc., 20 f., argues for a date in the Macca- b:»an period). This writer, in a passage preserved (or us by Josephus (c. Apion. i.

22), describes the second temple as 'a large edifice wherein is an altar (jSmui;), and a candclalinim (Xt/x^'o*). both of gold, two talents in weight.' The former term, in the light of what has been said above with regard to the altar-tables of Solomon and Ezekiel, we must identify with the table of shewbread. The other writer referred to is pseudo- Aristeas, whose date falls within the century 200-100 b.c.

In his famous letter, purporting to give an account of the origin of the Alexandrian version of the OT, he gives the rein to a lively imagination in his description of a shewbread table of unex- ampled magnificence — all of gold and precious gems, and of unsurpassed artistic workmanship — which Ptolemy Philadelphus i« said to have presented to the temple at .Jerusalem (see Wendland's or Tliackeray's edition of Aristeas' letter^tr. by the former in Kautzsch's Apokri/phen u.

Pseiidfpiffrapheii, ii, 6 ff.) This table is admitted to have bad no existence outside the pages of Aristeas. To resume the thread of our narrative, we find tliat on the re-dedication of the temple (B.C. 165) Judas Maccabanis had new furniture made, includ- ing the shewbrea<l table (1 Mac 4"), — now, we may be sure, constructed in entire conformity to the re- quirements of Ex 25^"-, — upon which the loaves were duly set forth (v.")

This table continued in use till the destruction of the temple by Titus in A.D. 70. Rescued from the blazing pile, it figtired along with the golden candlestick and a roll of the law in the triumph a>\arded to the victorious general (Jos. B-T vil. v. 3-7, esp. 5, § 148). Thereafter, these were all deposited by Vespasian in his newly built temple of Peace (ib. v. 7), while a representation of the triumph formed a conspicu- ous part of the decoration on the Arch of Titus, erected subsequently.

Few remains of classical antiquity have been so frequently reproduced as the panel of the arch on which are depicted the table and the candlestick, borne alott on the shoulders of the Roman veterans (see illustration under MusiC, vol. iii. p. 462). Both seem to have remained in Rome till the sack of the city by Genseric, king of the Vandals, in 455, by whom they were transferred to Carthage, the site of the new Vandal capital in Africa.

From Caithage they were transferred to Constantinople by Beli- sarius, in whose triumph they again ligured. On this occasion a Jew, it is said, working on the superstitious awe felt by Justinian for these sacred relics, induced the emperor to send them back to Jerusalem. They probably perished finally in the sack of .lerusalem by Chrosroes, the Persian, in 614 (see Reinach, ' L'Arc de Titus,' in HE J 20, p. Ixxxvf., in book form, 1890; Knight, 27ie Arch of Titus, 112ff.) iv.

Preparation OF THE Shewbread.— Accord- ing to the express testimony of Josephus {Ant. m. vi. 6), the Mishna, and later Jewish writers, the shewbread was unleavened. Nor does there seem to be anj- valid ground for the assertion, frequently made by recent writers, that it was otherwise in more primitive times. The absence of leaven best suits the undoubted antiquity of the rite, and, moreover, is confirmed by the B.abylonian practice of offering 'sweet' (i.e.

unleavened) bread on the tables of the gods (see below). The material in all periods was of the finest of the flour (Lv 24°), which was obtained, according to ilenahoth (vi. 7), by sifting the flour eleven times. The kneading and firing of the loaves in the time of tlie Chronicler was the duty of the ' sons of the Kohathites,' a Levitical guild (1 Ch 9**) ; in the closin" da3S of the second temple their preparation fell to the house or family of Garmu (Yoma iii. 11, Shclfal. viii. 1).

The quantity of flour prescribed by the Priests' Code for each loaf (n^n halld) was ' two tenth -parts of an ephah ' (Lv 24' RV), which — reckoning the ephah roughly at a bushel — repre- sents about ^ths of a peck (c. 7J litres), a quantity sufficient to produce a loaf of considerable dimen- sions, recalling the loaves which gave their name to the Delian festival of the MfyoXdpTio. In the earlier period, at least, the loaves were laid upon the table while still hot ( I S 21").

The later regulations required that they should be arranged in two piles (no-ii^s, see sect. i. above). On the top of each pile, apparently, — on the table between the pUes, according to another tradition, — stood a censer containing ' pure frankincense for a memorial (firix, for which see comni. on Lv 24'), even an offering by fire unto the I.ORD.' Alex- andrian writers give salt in addition (Lv I.e. in LXX; hence, doubtless, Philo, Vit. Mos. ii. 151).

The stale loaves, by the same regulations, were removed and fresh loaves substituted every Sab- bath. According to Sukka (v. 7f.), one half went to the outgoing division of priests, the other to the incoming division, by whom they were consumed wthin the sacred precincts.

In order to avoid repetition, further examination of the details given by post, biblical Jewish writers — many of them clearly wide of the mark — regarding the shape and size of the loaves and their arrangement on the table, as well as regarding the nature and purpose of the vessels mentioned. Ex 25^, Nu 4', is reserved for the section on P's table of It is a mere conlecture that the shewbread was originally bumtd (Stade, Akadem. Redm, etc, 180, note 15).

SHIBAH SHIELD 497 ehewbread and its vessels in the general articli! Tauern-aclk. V. SlUXIFICANCE OF THE RlTE. — The rite ot •the prt'Sfiice-bread' is one of the fairl}' nuiiierons survivals from the pre-Mosaic sta;,'e of the religion of the Hebrews, and coes back ultimately to the naive conception that tlie god, like his worsliipjiers, required and actually partook of material nourish- ment. No doubt, as W. U. Smith hn.

^ pointed out, this idea ' is too crude to subsist without niodilica- lion bejond the savage state of society ' (ii6'' 212). In the case of the shewbread, it may be suggested that the odour of the ' hot bread ' (on cnji 1 S 21«t'i) was regarded in ancient times as a ' sweet savour,' like the smell of the sacrilice to J"(Gn 8=', Lv23"').

Id any case the custom of presenting soli<l food on a table as an oblation to a god is too widespread among the peoples of antiquity to permit of doubt as to the origin of the rite among the Hebrews. The tectigtemia,whlch the Romans borrowed from the Greeks, afToril the most familiar illustration of this practice (see Smith's Z)iV/. of iir. and Horn. Antiqs.'-i r. v.)

In the OT itself we hear of Jeremiah's contenijioraries kncadinp cakes for the queen of heaven (Jer 7***), and, at a later date, of the table which even Jews spread to Fortune ((iAl», Is 6511 \i\). In the reli^jious literature of the ancient Babylonians, a;:ain, parti<rularly in the ritual tablets to which the attention of scholars has lately been turned, we find numerous references to the various items of foo<l and drink to be presented to the deities of the Babylonian pantheon.

The tables or altars, also, on which the fo<Kl was set out are frequently represented on the monuments (see, t.fj., HenzinKer, lltb. Arch. 3S7 ; Kiehm's HUB' i. 143, etc.) And not only so, but, as Zimmern has recently shown, the loaves of sweet or unleavened bread thus presented are, frequently at least, of the number of 12, 24, or even as many as 30 (see the rcfl. in Zinnnem's Beitrdge ztir Knintmn tier liafJulon. lieliition, lyOl, p. 94 f.)

These numbers, we can hardly doubt, have an ostronomicol signilicance, 12 being the number of the signs of the Zodiac, 24 the stations of the moon, and 3fi those of the planets (see 2 K 233 ItVm, Job 3S*'2, and art. Hahvlonia in vol. L p. 218»). The knowledge of this an<'ient pra<-ti<re of offering I'KkJ on the tables of the gods survived to a late period ; see tpist. of Jeremy, v.26ff., and the fragment of Bel and the Dragon (esp. v.

U ; note also that the food of Cel comprise<l ' twHvp great measures of fine flour*). Hence, if the loaves of the presence- bread were 12 in number from the earliest times, — though of this we have no early testimony, — we should have another of the rapidly increasing instances of early Babylonian influence in the West (of. Josepnus' association of the 12 loaves with the 12 months, Ant. in. rii. 7).

While, however, it must be admitted that the rite of the presence-bread had its origin in the circle of ideas just set forth, it is not less evident that, a.s taken up and preserved bj' the religious guides of Israel, the rite acquired a new and higher signilicance. Tlie bre.ad was no longer thought of as J"'8 food (" Dn^) in the sense att.achcd to it in an earlier age, but as a concrete exjire.ssion of the fact that .J" was the source of every materi.tl blessing.

As the 'continual bread ' (Tsn cn^ Nu 4'), it became the 'taiiding expression of tlie nation's gratitude to the Giver of all for the bounties of His provi- dence. The number twelve was later brought into connexion with the number of the tribes of Israel (cf. Lv 248), and thus, Sabb.ath by Sabbath, the priestly representatives of the nation renewed this outward and visible acknowledgment of man's wontiiiual dependence upon God.

The jucsence of the shewbread in the developed ritual, therefore, was not without a real and worthy signilic.ance. It may here be added, in a word, th.at the explana- tion ot the shewbread hitherto in vogue among the disciples of Hiihr, according to which the ' bread of the face ' was so named because it is through par- faking thereof that man attains to the sight of Gud, accords neither with the true sigiiilication of the term, nor with the historv of the rite. A. K. S. Kknnedv. SHIBAH (■ly??'

LX.X apKos[U.L. iuramentum]; Aq. Symm. irXTjcr/toi'^s [Vulg. aliuni/dntui]). — 'I'he well du;,' by I.saac, from which IJeer-sheba took its name, tin 26'^' (.1, who apparently makes r[]iiv = "Vrr 'oath'). The well, according to this view, derived its name from the ' swearing' (v.") of the vou IV. — 32 oath by which I.saac, on the one part, and Abimelech, with his friend Ahuzzath, and his chief captain Phicol, on the other, ratilied the covenant they had made (vv.--").

According to another account, Gn 2r, -^' (E), the well was dug by Ahraham, and Beer-sheba was so called because it was there that he and Abimelech ' sware both of tliein.' In the latter pas.sage there is also manifestly a \i\iiy upon the word I'sy ' seven,' seven lambs having been used (v.^"') in the ceremony. l'"or a description of the existing wells see DEElt-.silEBA, and add to Literature : Gautier, Expos: 'Times, 1S91», pp. 328 f., 478 f. ; and esp. ti. L. Robinson, Bihl. World, Apr.

1901, pp. 247-255 (with jilan and photo.s.): an abstract at the end of Driver's Joel and Amos*. C. \V. Wilson. SHIBBOLETH (n^Sp), Jg 12«.— The Ephraimite fugitives at the Jordan-fords betrayed themselves by pronouncing this word sibbolcth (nSnp) — an interesting proof of the dill'erence in dialect which distinguished the western tribes from those on the east of Jordan. 15y confusion of sounds shibboleth (nSns) would become sibboleth {rh'io), and so ^ibbnleth (nVno) ; see \\'right, Comp. Gram.

p. 58. Etj'inologicaily D (i) is quite distinct from l7 («), but the two are not infrequently confounded in Heb., e.a. i:>v_3 and oys, :id; I's 44''' arid j'li?} 2S 1'-'^, mSp;' for mS^o Ec 1" etc. ; by using D (.y) rather than to (s), the author of Jg 12 simply wished to make the sound as distinct from a {sh) as possible. In illustration of tliis peculiarity of the Ephraimite speech, it may be noted that the Heb. a {sh) as a mle = the Arab, ^/w (*), e.g.

yj:^, «_a_: ; and vice versa, the Heb. t (.s) = Arab. (i {sh), e.g. «ir, ^-v.i. tiimlii, in his commentary, in ?oc., mentions another local peculiarity in the pronunciation of the .sibilant : the people of Sarejjta sounded e> (sh) as n (</i); so frequently Heb. b> («A) =Arab. •■ • ' ((/t) = Aram. L{th). The Cr. versions of the passage are interesting : B (t« iii Koc'i xetTvi^Ovirai/ x.r.\. In both, the Kphr.'iiniites' reply is omitted. ' hucian ' (ed. Lagarde): nVari h^ ^{/*Uriu^.

nttt tl-n "^rocxut X.T.K. Codd. 54, 59, 75, 82 (Moore, M): hVkti Ot ri^OmfjM x^i yiyortt ffuitlr.fjuc et/ xxTriulJuvKii K.r.K By tri/Si^fMt is meant 'watchword,' 'countersign'; see 2 Mac 8^ 13'^. The Or. versions, of course, could not imitate the change of the Heb. sibilants, as the 'i'arg. and Syr. do. Vulg. Die ergo: .Scibboleth, aiiod interpretatur spica. Qui rftpondebat : Sibboleth, Mdejn liltera spicam ezprimere non vaUiu.

The meaning of the word is unimportant ; it may be either 'ear of wheat' (Assyr. sii/niltu), Gn 41°"-, Is 17" etc., or 'Hood,' 'stream,' Is '27", Ps 69"- '^ In the latter sense, which is suitable to the context, the \vord appears only in late passages; in this ancient story it would probably be understood 'ear.' JIarquarl (7.ATW, 1888, 161 fT.) attempts to prove that the Ephraimites did not pronounce V {sh) as £7 («) (cf. the name of their chief town p"lDt7 Shvmerdn, Samaria), and that t?

() could not pass into 0 (f) in old Hebrew. He thinks that t)te Qileodites said nSju {ahibhClfth) and meant ' Hood,' but the Ephraimites said n'^zn (tliiblwlcth) and meant 'ear' (cf. KSain Jerus. Targ. Gn 41'*"'-). This n (f/0 was represented by C (cf. 'I and Bib]. Aram, '"l) for want of a closer equivalent. But jMarquart's arguments are not eon\ incing, and bavj not gener- ally been accr-pteri. We have no means of kuowi'..^ what the Ephraimite dialect was.

l'"or ]iarallcls from European history see art. jEriiTiiAii, vol. ii. p. CU8 a. G. A. Cooke. SHIELD (or BUCKLER) is EV tr. in OT of the following Heb. words. 1. (Most commonly) 1:9 mdgin, a small round shield, a buckler ; the Gr * The exact relation between the two sounds is still undeter- mined ; see Ges.-Kautzsch, lUb. Ur. p. SO, D. 2 (Eng. ed.) 498 SHIELD SHIHOK dffTrfs and Lat. clipcus. 2. nj? zinndh, a large oval or rectangular shield. 3.

n-inb soherdh, ' buckler,' oiil}' in I's 91 [00]; the word, however, is prob- nbly a |iai ticiple (LXX KvxXJitrei) ; tr. with a slight tnienilalioii, 'His truth is an enconij)assing shield.' 4. [ITS khidn, 'shield,' 1 S 17' AV, 'target' v.« A\ , siiiiilarlj- LXX ; KV correctly 'javelin.' 5. D'c^;; s//tVu/iTO, 'shields,'2S8'=lCh 18', 2K 11"' = 2 Ch 23", Ca 4. Jer 51", Ezk 27" (only in these places, and only in tlie plur.)

, more correctly ' suits of armour,' Jer 51" KVm (see Expository Times, x. (1898) 4311'.) nhyj/af/fildh, u.sually tr. 'wagon,' means in I's 46° [Heb.'"] perhaps ' shield ' (so LXX, Vulg., Targ.); EV, Jerome (Psalter, iuxta Hch.), Pesliitta, ' chariots.' In the NT ' shield ' occurs once, Eph 6'°, as tr. of Bvpeo!, the large Rom. shield. 1. Material and Construction. — The material of which the shields known to the Hebrews were commonly made can only be inferred.

Solomon prepared 200 'targets' (mf, i.e. large shields) and 300 'shields' ([jc, i.e. bucklers), which were either made of gold or else heavily overlaid with gold (1 K 10"''). When these were carried off by Shishak, Relioboam made ' brazen ' (bronze) shields to take their place (ib. 14^-"). The 'shields' found among the treasures of Hezekiah were also probably made of one of the precious metals, or at least adorned with it (2 Ch 32-'').

* Both tlie golden shields and the bronze were probably used only for state ceremonial : the war shield was doubtless either like the Roman scutum of leather stretched over a wooden frame, or like the Persian yippov of wickerwork. That shields were largely composed of some inflammable substance may be inferred from such passages as Ezk 39", Ps 46' [45'»] LXX (cf. Is 9' RV). A shield was overlaid with plates, perhaps of bronze (cf.

Job 41'^ RVm, where the scales of the crocodile are compared with the plates of a shield) ; it was also furnished with a boss (cf. Job 15^"), such as is shown on the Assyr. reliefs, passim. The Assyr. shields were highly convex and sometimes round, sometimes irregular in shape, i.e. rectangular at the foot (for planting firmly against the ground) but pointed at the top. 2. Use. — The shield was kept in a case wlien not in use (Is 22" ; cf. Aristophanes, Ach. 574, and Euripides, Andr. 617).

It was anointed before battle to make its surface slippery (Is 21'; cf. Driver on 2 S P', who quotes Vergil, /En. vii. 626). In battle it sometimes had a ' red ' appear- ance (Nah 2^ l''l), either because it was dyed red (A. B. Davidson, ad toe), or because it was over- laid with burnished copper (Nowack, Ileb. Arcluto- loffie, i. 364), or again because the leather itself might be described as ' red,' cnx 'adorn being apiilied to the colour of the human skin (La 4').

The large shield was much used in siei'es as a stationary screen, from behind which tlie garrison on the walls might be a.ssaileil with arrows (2 K 19'-= Is 37^, Sir 37' Heb.) A large shield was sometimes carried in battle by an attendant in front of his master (1 S 17' Heb., LXX [A and Luc], Peshitta, a verse om. in LXX B, but probably genuine). In limes of peace shields were hung in armouries, to the admiration of beholders (Ca 4, Ezk 27'"). 3. Metnpliorical use of the term 'shield.'

— In the OT God's favour (Ps S^^tisj) and His faithfulness (Ps 91 [90'']) are compared to a shield, cf. ' the shield of thy salvation' (Ps I8> [17"»]). By a still holder metaphor in several other places God Himself i.s called the 'shield' (p^) of His people or of His saints: Gn 15', Dt 3.'=s, Pa 33 HJ 182- »" [17'- "1 33 [32]=" 59" [58'=] 849" [SS'"- '=] 115"-'" [113"''-']. Pr 2' 30* [24'^]. In all these pa.ssages the LXX tr. p?

either by v-n-epaainaTTii (once Ps 3 by ivTiXriin-trTbip) or by some form of the verb uitp- affrlfui. The Peshitta follows a sinnlar course. It But lee note ad luc. in the Camb. Bible. is true that p? taken as Hiphil partic. of pj is ■ Sossible nomcn arjcntis, but it is probable that tha leb. metaphor was too bold for the Gr. and Syr. translators. Thus in Ps 84" [83'-] the Heb. and Aq. give ' The Lord is a sun and shield,' while tha LXX (followed by the Vulg.)

timidly paraphrases fXeoK <cai oKijBeiav ayairi^ Ki'pios. Symm. (if rightly given in Field) is also timid, f[Kiov yap xai iirepaa- iriaiihii Kt>/)ios (a transitive verb, probably iiiaa from the next clause, being understood). Jerome (Psalter, iuxta. Hch. ) gives ' Sol et scutum Dominus' here, and 'clipeus' in some other places quoted above, but in Ps 59" I'^l 115»-" "'-'»i he has 'pro- tector' ( = iiTrepocrTiffT^s). Ben Sira (i,l'*=('°l Heb.)

writes, 'Give thanks to the fllitii cl Abraham' (in allusion to Gn 15'). In the one passage of the NT in which ' shield ' occurs, the word is metaphorically applied to Christian faith (Eph 6'° avaXa^ovra rbv dvpeiv t^i Tlareiiis, sumentes scutum fdci). In 1 Th 5' the apostle had urged his converts to put on OihpaKo. ttIotcus Ka.1 ayaiTTii, ' a coat of mail of faith and love ' (see Brea.

stplate) ; but during his Roman imprisonment his imagination was struck with tho great Roman shield, and he changed his metaphor, without, however, abandoning the thought that faith is the Christian's vital defence. In the OT (Ps 91 [90] ■*) God's faithfulness is man's shield ; in the NT the identification of faith with the shield gives us the neces.sary complementary thought that on man's side faith is needed in order that God's proH'ered protection may be embraced. AV. Emeky Barnes.