ELI ('^y) belonged to the house of Ithamar, the fourth son of Aaron, and was apparently the first high priest of that line ; cf. 1 Ch 24", where Ahi- melech the son of Abiathar (2 S 8"), who escaped from the massacre at Nob (1 S 22*), is expressly stated to be one 'of the sons of Ithamar.' It is owing to this fact that neither E. nor his im- mediate successors in the high priestly office, up to and including Abiathar, are mentioned in the
fenealogy of the high priests from Aaron and lleazar down to the destruction of the temple ( 1 Ch 6''"). The last high priest mentioned before E., Phinehas, belonged to the house of Eleazar (Jg 2C) ; but no account is given of how or when this change in the priestly succession took place, though it would seem to have had the divine sanc- tion (1 S 2**). The high priesthood returned to the descendants of the house of Eleazar in the reign of Solomon, when Abiathar was deprived of his office and banished from Jerus. because of his participa- tion in the revolt of Adonijah ; his place was filled by Zadok, of the house of Eleazar (1 K 2*«'-). ' the faithful priest ' of 1 S 2*>.
In the person of E. were united for the first time in the history of Israel the two offices of high priest and judge. He is stated to have judged Israel 40
f'ears (1S4"LXX elKoai (rri); but this chrono- ogical notice, as also the statement of his age (4"), is prob. due to a later deuteronomic redactor. We learn little of the life and character of E. from I S, the first eight cliapters of which are mainly concerned with the history of Samuel. We gather, however, that he was a man of kindly disposition,
and, setting aside the treatment of his sons, sincere and upright in the performance of hia twofold office ; while his ready submission to the divine sentence pronounced against his house, proves the reality of his belief in the God of Israel. Thus while officiating, by Wrtue of his priestly office, at Shiloh, he first reproves Hannah, and then, on discovering his error, gives her his bless- ing ; whilst the kindliness of his disposition showa itself in his treatment of the youthful Samuel. It was, however, the kindliness, not of a strong but of a weak character, and as such was destined to come into conflict with the stem dictates of duty. His two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, were, in the language of Scripture, ' men of Belial ' (or worth- lessness) ; they ' knew not the Lord,' and profaned their sacred calling by their greed and licentious- ness. Nevertheless, their father shrank from the distasteful task of punishing their conduct in the way that it deserved, and contented himself with administering a mUd rebuke. Their punishment, therefore, must be left to a higher tribunal, and on two occasions was the aged priest warned of the fate that would befall his sons in consequence of their neglect of duty. At the first an anonymous prophet is sent to show him his sin in honouring his sons above God, and to announce the downfall of his house (' there shall not be an old man in thy house for ever '). In token of the certainty of this impending doom, E. is given a sign, viz. the death of his two sons in one day (1 S 2^"''). The text of this section is apparently in disorder, and would seem to have been expanded by a later deuteronomic author. On the second occasion, the Lord Himself appears to the child Samuel and confirms the sentence which had previously been announced. His faith unshaken, E. submits with- out a murmur to the divine decree (1 S S"-)- The end is not far ofl'; the Philistines once more swarm across the Shephelah, and at the first attack defeat the Israelites. In vain is the ark of the covenant brought from Shiloh by Hophni and Phinehas. The Philistines renew the battle, and inflict a further crushing defeat on the Israelites ; the ark is captured, and Eli's two sons are slain. Overcome by the terrible news, the aged E. fell from his seat by the gate of the city ; ' his neck brake, and he died '(IS 4"). J. F. Stenning.
ELI, ELI, LAMA SABACHTHANI and ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI.— Slightly different forms of the exclamation uttered by Jesus, accord- ing to the evangelists Matt. (27") and Mark (15") respectively, shortly before his death. Both evan- gelists follow it with the translation, in sliglitly varying terms : ' My God, my God (in Gospel of St. Peter ^ Sivaidt )iov ' my power ') why hast thou forsaken me ' (or ' why didst thou forsake me ') — which shows the cry to be a reminiscence of Ps 22'. But the Heb. of the psalm ("KQiv^, ■i=i' 'h>! 'bv, »■«■ eli, eli, lama azabhtani) agrees with neither form of the saying as given by the evan<;elists. Indeed the MSS of the Gospels exhibit cousidemble variety of spelling in the case of nearly every word (see Tischendorf, Nov. Test. Gr. eel. octava crit. maior, ll.cc). These variations start interest- ing inquiries, which this is not the place to follow out. Suffice it to say, that there is m tli" words a singular and somewhat perplexing combination of Heb. and Aramaic. A\ hether, tor instance, the Eloi CEXoii) represents a provincial (Galilean?) pro- nunciation of the Heb. Eli (iiM), or the (poetic) sing. Eloah (even the reading iXaeln occurs ; cf. too, i\aet, Jg 5' Sept.), or is intended for a trans- literation of the Aram, alohi (elahi), has been questioned. Either form, we must suppose, could be so perverted as to serve the mocking jiretence that the sufferer was invoking Elijah. For the form