\t is scarcely to be expected, however, that the
measures of OT times can have been so precisely the equivalent of the Gr;eco-lli)inan denominations as this identification presupposes, and there are not wanting indications of this in Josephus' own writings and in those of later authors, especially as regards the larger denominations. Are there, then, sufficient data available for reaching a closer approximation of the original values of the Heb. measures ? I'erhapsthe most unsatisfactory of all methods of solving this problem is that frequently attempled, down even to our own day (see Watson, FhtSt, 1898), on the basis of the dimensions of Solomon's brazen sea and the lavers of the temple (1 K7^''*' with paralls. in Chron., LXX, and Joseph.) — a solution wliich the conllict- ing dimensions m the literary sources named, and our ignorance of the shape of the vessels in ques- tion, render only less futile than the converse attempt to deduce from the same conflicting and insufficient data the length of the Heb. cubit ! But little more satisfaction is obtained by starting from the Rabbinic theor}', that the log was equal in cubic content to six medium-sized eggs, as may be seen from the widely divergent results in the writings of previous investigators. The Alex- andrian translators (LXX), finally, to whom one naturally turns for the equivalents of the Hebrew measures in the Gijeco-Kgyp. system, are dis- appointing in the extreme. Here transliterating, there paraphrasing, now omitting and now making a random guess, these translators betray a re- markable ignorance of the contemporary Jewish measures (see next g for ample illustration).
(«) Two features of the system under investiga- tion seem to warrant us in looking once more to Babylonia as its original home, namely the number of logs in the Aor (720 = .360 x 2), as if the log were the half of a unit that has now dis- appeared, and the apparent identity of the kor with the Babylonian ideogram gur (cf. kikkar, talent, with Bab. gaggaru). Unfortunately, it must be admitted that, notwithstanding the bril- liant researches of Oppert and his fellow-workers, the measures of volume are still the least satis- factory dei)artment of Bab. metrology (see esp. the elaborate exposition and criticism in Johns' Assyrian Deeds, etc. [1901]). Adopting, however, with due reserve the view of Lehmann and others (cf. above § vi., also Hommel's art. Bahylonia, vol. i. [). 219) that tlie unit of volume was the ka — which Hommel [I.e.) would identify with the Heb. kah — equal to an original heavy mina's weight of water (15,1(50 grains, see § ii. above), we get 1'73 imperial pints as the value of this unit,* 624 pints for a gur of 360 ka, and 62'4 pints for the assumed original of the Heb. ephah-bath. On the other hand, if the measures of volume increased pari pas.tu-Kith the weights, the niina of 16,000 grains which has been ccjiielusively proved to have been adoi)ted in the West (§ ii.) would yield a kor of 658 pints and an cp/iahbath of 65'8 pints.
(6) Again, if we follow the clue suggested by the Egyjitian affinity in the department of the linear measures, we liiid an interesting parallel to the treatment of the Heb. measures in the Gneco- Roman period. A working equivalent of the epluik-balh, we have seen, was obtained by identi- fying it with the Attic melretes of 71 sextarii. Now, precisely this same equation was adopted in Egypt under the Ptolemies for a measure with a long jjcdigreo, known in the Ptolemaic ages as the artabe (dprd/Srjl.t That this equation of the artabe
' Tlic Impcriiil urallon contains 10 lb. (70,0U0 gniiiu) of distilled Wftlcr at a tt-mperuturf of 60' Fahr.
f Wilckcn, howovor, haa found no fewer than flvo different artabff in use in E^'pt in the Ptolemaic period (jOriteh. OMraka, I. 740 11.).
912 WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
wit)i the mctrctes was a working and not a scientiliially exact equation, is evident from the fact that by the native authorities {Gritiith, PSBA xiv. 435) the artabe was defined as containing 80 Ejiyjitian hin, the Iiin being a volume of water 5 ciehcn in weight (7020-717U grains, according to tlie valuation of the ket, see § ii. ), which works out at a little less or more than 65 pints for the artabe. Now, the artabe was the lineal descendant of an ancient measure derived from a fraction of the cubit cubed (Gritiith, I.e.) ; and since the Egyp. cubits passed to Palestine, there is a prima facie case for suggesting, as an alternative to the Baby- lonian origin of the ephah-bath, its derivation from the Eg^'ptian sj'stem, with a value of 65 pints.
(c) But there is more reliable evidence than these somewbat hypothetical deductions as to
Epiphanius in his work on weights and measure* (edited by Hultsch, op. cit., and by Lagarde in his Symmuta), which give to the ephah a value ranging from 64 to 66 sextai-ii. For other, mainly specula- tive, methods of calculation see Watson, PEFSt, 1898, 109 if. (7-85 galls.), and Warren, ib. 1899, 252 tr. (8-42 galls.).
The result of our investigation, then, is to point to an approximate value for the ephah-bath in OT times of 65 imperial pints (36 92 litres). From the necessity of establishing a more convenient work- ing equation in later times, it was regarded in most cases as the equivalent of the Attic metretci of 72 Konian sextarii, or 9 galls, nearly, on the basis of the identification of the log witli the sex- tarius. Both these values are given in the following tables : —