' Rock of Ages cleft for me. Let me hide myself in thee,' a relationship implying the closest possible union';? It is not something fictitious or unreal, but some- thino- which the fact of sin demands. For just as the sinrit of independence is a ridiculous assumption for the creature in the presence of his Creator, so that of dependence on a perfect character carries with it a definite moral quality. .
It may be said that this interpretation explains the substantive but not the adjective, that we have a meaning for 'garment' but not for 'wedding garment.' The wedding of the parable stands for the union of God with humanity-the Incarnation, as we call it. The indifterence to that fact is the heaviest condemnation the world can receive. That was the blunder of the commercial people ot our Lord's time, who were so engrossed with their own business as to pay no attention to the presence of Christ in the Avorld, and who, when it seemed as though it would interfere mth their concerns did their best to destroy it. The blunder of the outcast is to suppose that this wonderful con- descension was not necessary. It is this that is depicted in the incident of <^^^g ^jf |"fy»^\^^LK' WEEK.— See Time, WEEPING.— See Tears.
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.— The specific ob- ject for which the Gospels were composed did not iall for anything like a full detailed use of metrical data. Within their limited compass there are only incidental allusions to a system or rather systems^ of weights and measures. These are natuially
WEIGHTS AND MEASUKES
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 819
scanty and obsciire. The most tliat can be done with them is to identify them as nearly as pos- sible with equivalents in modern systems, and to ascertain their places in those that were current in the Palestine of NT times. At this last point a difficulty at once emerges, due partly to the absence of regard for accuracy and precision in such matters prevalent at the time and place, and partly to the mixture of standards derived from successive and widely diftering populations coming in with suc- cessive waves of conquest and invasion. The situa- tion was not unlike that of modern Syria, with its bewildering confusion of coinage and other stand- ards of value, brought in and grafted on the native system by French, German, and English merchants.
It is generally agreed by expert metrologists that the basis and fountainhead of all systems of measurement is to be traced to Babylonia. But in passing into Western countries, the Babylonian system was naturally subjected to as many modifi- cations as it entered regions, and gave rise to quite as many secondary or derivative systems. These, during the course of the interrelations of the peoples using them, mutually affected one another ; and the result was a variety of values called by the same name, or by names derived from the same original. On account of this fact, etymo- logical processes of reasoning are in this field of little value, if not altogether valueless and mis- leading. Moreover, throughout the whole history of metrology there is a tendency noticeable to- wards the shrinkage or reduction of primitive values, making it essential to distinguish with great care between the values current under the same name in different periods of history. In the attempt to reach the exact facts as far as the 1st cent. A.D. is concerned, it will be best to bear in mind that in Palestine during the OT period three main systems of metrology came into use more or less extensively, the Babylonian, the Egyptian, and tlie Phoenician, and that to these, just before the times of Jesus, the Roman conquest added a fourth as a disturbing element.
I. Weights. — The primitive unit of weight was the shekel. This developed into two forms, the heavy and the light (cf. Kennedy in Hastings' DB, art. ' Weights and Measures '). The heavy shekel weighed 252'5 grs., and the light just one-half of that. Perhaps while the shekel was still being used in these forms, a third value was attached to it by the introduction of the Syrian shekel of 320 grs., and a fourth value later, viz. the Phoenician of 224"4 grs. In Roman times the denarius was introduced. This was equivalent to the Attic drachm. But Josephus (Ant. in. viii. 2) repre- sents the Hebrew shekel {(tIkXo^) as equal to a tetradrachm (4 drs. ), and a drachm-denarius was fixed by Nero at 52*62 grs. At least approximately, therefore, for the 1st cent. A.D., three units in the scale of weights may be determined, as follows : the drachm-denarius = 52"5 grs., the light shekel = 105 grs., and the heavy shekel = 210 grs. Of the higher imits tlie mina is equated with iOO drs., and the talent with 60 mince, hence the scale :
Dr.-Den. Shek. Tetr. Min. Talent.
Drachm-Denar. 1
52-5-fgrs
Shek. (light) . 2
1
105-f „
Shek. (heavy) 4
2
1
210-t- „
Tetradrachm
Mina . . 100
50
25
1
5250 -f „
Talent . . 6000
3000
1500
60 1
31 5000 -h „
In the Gospels the words didpaxfj^ov (light shekel, Mt 17=^) andrdtXaiToi' * (talent, Mt 18--' 251^-^) occur, but not as the names of weights ; they are the designations of coins (see Money). The only term