which he holds to be identical with the length of the socondj itendulum in the latitude of the astronomer prients of Baby- Ionia I The unit of volume was a cubic vessel, tno side of which was a handbreoiltb, or ^ of the double cubit (c. a-fl in.); the weight of water it contained constituted the unit of weight, \ iz. the heavy niina of 16.100 grains (see % ii. above). For a thoroughgoing criticism of Lehmann's views, and of the earlier researches of Oppert in tliis field, see .lohns, Asi'^irian Dtidt and DocumenU (lUOl), ch. UL 'Metrology,' pp. 184-273.
908 WEIGHTS AND MEASUEES
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
disclosed is only approximate. The nieasuied length, 1758 ft., yields 1193 short Egyp. cubits of 17'68 in. and 1206 of the Gr. cubit of 17J in. Both the cubits proposed by Flinders Petrie are evidently out of the question (see, further, below).
(i) The evidence of Josep/uis. — All attempts to solve our problem from a comparison of the measure- ments of -.he temple area as i.'iven by Josephus and in the Mishna treatise M'uhloth ('measure- ments') with those of the IJaram of to-day, are unsatisfactory, for the double reason that the data of tlie two authorities named are frequently in condict, — and, at the best, have no claim to be more than roughly estimated, and, in the case of the Mishna, traditional llgures, — and that the Jlaram area has undergone many changes since the Ist cent, of our era. But there is an argu- ment from Josephus which has not hitherto been pressed, viz. the arqumcntum e sitentio. It is generally admitted (see W. K. Smith, Encyc. Brit.^ xxiii. 166) that Josephus makes use of the Roman- Attic cubit (vi)xv%) throughout his historical WTit- ings. Thus the side of the square, within which stood the temple of Heiod, is given now as a stadium, or 600 Gr. ft. {Ant. XV. xi. 3 [§ 400, cf. 415]), now as 400 cubits (ih. XX. ix. 7 [§ 221]), which assumes the ratio (3 : 2) between the cubit and the foot adopted by the nations of classical antiquity. Now Josephus, as we shall see in a subsequent section, frequently gives equations of the Jewish measures of capacity with those of his Gra;co- Roman readers, and less frequently compares the respective weights and coins; but nowhere, ap- parently, does he give a single indication of the Heb. cubit differing materially from the Human- Attic cubit of the 1st cent. Hence, ifl giving the dimensions of objects described in the OT, — such as Solomon's temple, the tabernacle, etc., — Josephus renders the numbers of the Heb. cubit by the same numbers of the Gr. cubit. In one case at least he even gives the dimensions of 2.^ by 1 J cubits of the original (Ex 25'") as 5 by 3 spans (criri9aA"i), the spithami being the half of the Gr. cubit. •Vgain, the distance of the Mount of Olives from Jerusalem is given by the author of the Acts (1'') as ' a Sabbath-day's journey,' which was a very familiar measure of 2(i00 Heb. cubits (see next §). But Josephus gives the same distance as five stadia {Ant. XX. viii. 6 [16!l]), wliich are 3000 Gr. feet or 2000 Gr. cubits. Tliese data, then, all go to show that, in Josephus' day at least, the Jewish and Gr. cubits were for practical purposes identical in value. Taking the Roman-Attic foot, as linally determined by Dorpfeld s elaborate researches, as 2!)6 millimetres = 11-65 in. (art. 'Mensura'in Siiiitli's Did. of Antig,^; Nissen, Metrologic-), we obtain 17-47, say 17^ in., as a second approxima- tion to the length of the Jewish cubit m the 1st cent, of our era.
(e) The evidence of the 3fiihna. — Nothing is to be gained from the oft-quoted but purely academic discussion regarding the two cubit-rods, said to have been preserved in chambers over the Shushan gate of the temple {Kilim xvii. 9, 10), beyond confirmation of the uniform tradition that the 'cubit of Mose3,' i.e. of the Priests' Code, con- tained 6 palms or 24 digits {ib. 10). The true explanation of the cubit-rods of 24J and 25 digits respectively may be that we have here a confused recollection that the Heb. cubit was originally longer bv a fraction of an inch than the Roman- Attic cubit. Rabbi Judah's cubit of 5 palms ' for vessels' (I.e.) may be the gomed or short cubit of Ehud's dagger (see next §). A more definite datiuu for the approximate value of the Mishna cubit is found in Baba bathra, vi. 8, where the law pre- scribes the following as the dimensions of the hukim ic-;;.i) or locuh in the case of a Jew taking
a contract for the construction of a rock-cut tomb, viz. height 7 palms, width 6 palms, length 4 cubits. The last of these dimensions lecalls the ipyvid (from ipiyw, 'to stretch'), or the 4-cubit fatliom of the Greeks, it having been early ob- served that the 'stretch' of a well-proportioned man, from tip to tip of his outstretched arms, was equal to his height. Since the Jews were buried without coffins, if we knew their average height, we should have a fair approach to the leuLth of their cubit. They were certainly not a tall people, and in modern times, in the most favourable cir- cumstances, are said to average 5 ft. 6 in. to 5 ft. 8 in. (Jacobs quoted by Warren, PEFSt, 1809, 228 f. )* Allowing a margin for the bier, we cannot be far wrong in taking 5 ft. 10 in. as the jirobable length of the loculi contemplated by the later Jewish law, which yields a cubit of 17J in. as our third approximation. In any case, this pas- sage disposes finally of Conder's cubit of 16 in., which would reduce the average height of the Jews to less than 5 ft. 4 in. !