Literature. —See under Pharisees and Scribes.
Joseph Mitchell. SADOC— A link in our Lord's genealogy (Mt 1").
SAINTS. — The word 'saints' [oi dyioi) occurs in the Gospels in Mt 21^^ only. Elsewhere in the NT it is never used of any but Christians {e.g. Ac 9^^, Ro 1213, Rev IV«). In the LXX (Dn 722.25.27 324) aytoi is the equivalent of D'tyip 'the holy ones' {i.e. angels). The root idea seems to be that of ' separa- tion,' so that a 'saint' is one who is separated, consecrated, one who belongs to God. Its occur- rence in Mt 27^'^ opens up the entire question of the meaning of the section. The incident is peculiar to the Fir.st Gospel, and occurs in the course of the narrative of our Lord's crucifixion and death. It is stated that at the moment of His death there was a supernatural earthquake which caused the tombs to be opened, and that immediately following His resurrection on the first day of the week many bodies (o-oj/^ara) of dead saints arose from their graves, and the persons (efeX^ocres, masc.) thus raised from the dead appeared in the city of Jeru- salem to many. Several theories have been put forward to account for this remarkable statement.
1. It is said to be an interpolation. In reply, it is argued that the textual evidence of MSS and Versions is exactly the same for this passage as for the rest of the First Gospel. It is also urged that
the incident seems plainly referred to as early as Ignatius (Ej). ad Magn. 9).
2. It is said to be a legendary addition. It is thought that the graves were rent by an earth- quake which actually occurred, and that then this statement was subsequently added as a spiritual explanation of the natural phenomenon. Bruce {EGT, in loc.) says : 'We seem here to be in the region of Christian legend.' Meyer takes the same general view. Those who oppose this view argue that textual considerations give no indication of a later addition, and that the writer of the First Gospel evidently believed in the incident, and wished his readers to do the same.
3. It is accounted for as a wrong explanation of incidents which were in themselves true. Farrar {Life of Christ) suggests that these ghostly visitants were the product of the imagination of those who were impressed by the events then taking place. To this it is replied that there is no trace of it in the narrative which now is, and apparently has been from the first, an integral part of this Gospel.
4. It is explained by saying that we have in the incident a striking testimony to the supernatural character and far-reaching power of our Lord's death ; that not only did it affect nature (earth- quake), the Jewish economy (the rent veil), and human life (centurion), but that its influence pene- trated even to the unseen world. The narrative as it stands says that it was at the moment of His death that the tombs were opened, but tiiat the actual rising of the saints did not take place until after the Lord's resurrection. He was ' the first- fruits of them that slept.' The fact that the inci- dent is found in one Gospel only is, it is urged, no necessary argument against its credibility. On this view, the question as to who were the saints would seem to be answered by the narrative itself. The tombs Avere near Jerusalem, and the fact of recognition implied in the appearance of the risen ones in the city suggests that the saints wei'e some of those Avho, during their earthly life, had been led to faith in Jesus as the Messiah : godly people of the type of Anna, Simeon, Zacharias, and Elisa- beth. Those who accept its genuineness fully recognize that the incident is mysterious, but they point out that the narrative as it stands is a calm, quiet statement, marked by reserve and by tlie absence of all legendary details. The upholders of the authenticity consider it full of spiritual mean- ing as to the supernatural character of our Lord's death in relation to the holy dead, holding that it was a manifestation of His power over death and the grave (1) by the resurrection of some from Hades, (2) by the clothing of them with a resurrec- tion body, and (3) by permission to appear to those who knew them. On this theory the narrative is to be accepted as it is, and the exegesis of the passage strictly adhered to without endeavouring to draw conclusions which go beyond the brief record.
Literature. — (1) in favour of historicity : Alford, Com. in loc. ; Westcott, Introd. to Gosjjels*, p. 32f)f. ; Thinker, vol. v. (2) in favour of legendarj' character : Bruce, Meyer, etc.
W. H. Griffith Thomas. SALIM.— Mentioned only Jn S'^ ' ^non near to Salim,' to fix the place where John was baptizing, ' because there was much water there.' Scrivener's edition of the AV gives as marginal references 'Gn 33"' or Jos IS^^? or 1 S 9*-'; other editions only the last passage (where the text has Shalim, or "rather Shaalim, in Heb. c^hv^), the RV only the first (margin). It is to be noticed that the former view is also that of Jerome, in his Liber interpret. Heb. Nom., when he writes: 'Salim pugilli sive volte aut ortus aquarum, quod brevius grsece dicitur ^pvovra ' ; pvgilli and voice = □'Sj;e'. And before Jerome, Origen also explained in a similar way (on Jn lO^^ p. 543 of the Berlin ed.):