The whole series of dry measures, to be dis- cussed in the following sections, were used by the Jews of NT times in tliis way, from the frequently mentioned hcth-ruba or J kab plot (104 sq. cubits, Pcah i. 6, Baba bathra ii. 5, etc. ) up to the beth- kCir (B. bathra, vii. 1) of 75,000 sq. cubits, and its multiples. The dimension last given is that of the field of Lv 27'°, mentioned above (for tlie identity of the kor and the homer see next §), which was therefore about 3j acres in extent. This system of Held measurement, although it may be traced in parts of the Koman empire, as, e.g., in the a~irupi.fi.os ^oStos, whicli was a tliird of the jugerum (Hultsch, MetroL' 616 f.), had its liome in Baby- lonia, where the field last mentioned would have been described as in Hebrew {bitu 1 imer ekli, a one-homer field ; see Johns, Assyrian Deeds, 219 If.) — a fact which seems conclusive in favour of the explanation of Elijah's trench given above.
Hebrew Measures of Capacity. — ix. Tht scales of wet and dry measure. The value of the ephahbalh. — While familiar with such rougli-and- ready measures of capacity as the kOmez or hanilful (Lv 2- 5'- 6'*) and the hophen (dual, ' two-h:uida full,' Ex 9», Lv 16'-, Ezk 10-), the Hebrews from early times had a carefully graduated system both for wet and dry measures, the names and values of wliicli have too frequently been obliterated in our Englisli versions by an indiscriminating fond- ness for tlie rendering ' measure.' + The relation of the various denominations to each other are happily amply attested, and may be represented in tabular form, by anticipation, thus —
Scale of Measures of Voldub.
Homer-) Kor. {
Ephah-l Bath. ;
Seab.
Eab.
Hill.
Lo({
10 =
30
" 00 =
180 =
= 720
1
3
6
18
72
1
i
6
i
24 12
4
Of these the homer, ephah, ^eah, and kab are mentioned in OT as dry measures, the first named
" It is tempting to compare this expression with the actiit, originally the headland where the plough was turned (Heb. njj;), which ultimately became the Roman unit of land measun (120X 120 (t., c. 1600 sq. yards).
t As illustrations of confusion thus caused— a baneful legaCT from the LXX— Lk 13^1 compared with 108. 7 may be consulted, where three denominations, standing to each other in tha ratios 1 : 8 ; 30, are rendered indiscriminately by ' measure ' (se« next §).
WEIGHTS AND MEASUKES
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 911
being supplanted in later times by tlie kor ; the hath, hin, and log onlj- as liquid measures. The proportions in the table show the inllueiice of the sexagesimal system, while the 'omer or 'iisnrun, iV of the epnah, represents a parallel decimal subdivision (see below). It will be noted, further, that the two sets are essentially identical. In the case of the homer and the kur, also of the ephnh and the hath, this identity is indeed expressly attested by Ezekiel in an imi)ortant context, where also the latter pair are stated to be a tenth part of the former pair (Ezk 45"").
Of the absolute values of the various denomina- tions in terms of other and better-known systems, we have no reliable evidence older than the 1st cent, of our era, by wliich time, as the latest Jewish weight- system so strikingly illustrated, Palestine had become the meeting-place of several sj'stems of metrology, leading to an unavoidable syncretism, and to the identitication of native ■weights and measures with the nearest approxi- mations in foreign systems. Bearing this in mind, we shall now adduce a few of the more useful equations to be found in the Anti</uities of Josephus.
(a) VIII. ii. 9 (Niese, § 57), the hath (ySdros) is
equivalent to 72 sextarii (^iarai).
(b) IX. iv. 5 (§ 85i, the seah (<rdTov=i ephah or
bath) = li Koiiian modii, i.e. 24 sextarii.
(c) m. viii. 3 (§ 3U), the hin {eXv = i hath) = 2
Attic choes, i.e. 12 sextarii. Cf. III. ix. 4 (§ 234). {d} XV. ix. 2 (§ 314), the kor (icipos = 10 ep/uih- baths) is equivalent to 10 Attic nietretai, i.e. 720 sextarii {fi.eSifii'ovs [read fierpr/Tas]
Earlier possibly in date than these equations is the evidence of the anonymous fragment wtpl M<rpwi'(Hultsch, Metrol. Script, i. 258), where after the definition of the Phcen. kor as containing 30 seahs it is added : ' the seah is 1^ modius,' a dehni- tion identical with that of Jerome commenting on Mt 1.3^. Now, the basis of all these equations is the identification, as a glance at our table will show, of the Hebrew tor/ with the Grseco-Ilonian sextarius, as is done by the anonymous translator of Lv 14'° cited apud Field, Origenis Ilexapla, in lor. (cf. Antiq. IX. iv. 4 [§ 62], where the quarter kah of 2 K 6^, i.e. the log, is also rendered by ii<TTTi)s). Evidence to the same ellect might be pro- duced from the Mishna, where it is said of the ollerings prescribed in the Pentateuch tliat ' their measure w on the Roman standard ' {Ki'lim xvii. 11). The determination of the value of the scxtarius-xestes, the <:ommon unit of the Greek and Roman systems, in terms of our imperial system is therefore an indisjiensable preliminary to further progress. Two methods are open to us. We may, with Hultsch, start from the ttieoretical and legal determination of the Roman quailnint.Tl as 80 Roman jjounds weight of wine, and the similar determination of our imperial gallon as 10 lb. of water, and so reach a value for the sextarius of 'ye imperial pint, the value adopted in the tables in Smith's Diet, of Antiq.' from Hultsch, Metrol.' (paxsim). Or we may prefer the deter- mination given by the best of the extant Roman measures, the Famese congius in Dresden, which yields a sextarius equal to 99 of a pint. This latter method has the advantage of allowing the lextarivs-log of the Jewish system to be taken, for the smaller determinations, as the equivalent of our pint, and will be followed in this and the subsequent section. This gives for the ephah-hat/i of 72 logs, which is the most convenient measure for detailed examination, the value of 71-28 pints, •r approximately 9 gallons (see table below).