The same word is used of the ' crown of thorns,' which probably was intended to mock the defeat and humiliation of the ' King of the Jews.' It marked the ironical contemjjt of the Roman soldiers for the Jews. In the later history of the Apostolic Church the question of the relation of Christian converts to these ' crowns ' of the Roman army and Emperors became a burning one, which is discussed by Tertullian in his work de Corona.
LiTERATtrRK. — Liddell and Scott, Greek-Eng. Lexicon, and Grimm - Thayer, s.vv. <TTe<f>avoi and SidSrifia; W. Smith, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, 1868, «.». •Corona'; flZ>fii. 529; EGTiv.v.; J. B. Lightfoot, Philip- pians*, 1878, p. 157. "W. F. BOYD.
CRYSTAL (Kp^jraWoi, from /c/)i5os, frost). — The glassy sea before the throne of God is like unto crystal (Rev 4"), the light of the New Jerusalem like a crystal-clear jasper (2P'), and the river of the water of life bright (Xafj.irp6v) as crystal (22'). KpvaraWo^ signifies either ice (glades) or rock-crystal (crystallum). For the purpose of the similes it is immaterial which of these is meant, as both are colourless and transparent, and either may be used to convey an idea of * the white radiance of eternity.' The same ambiguity attaches to the terrible crystal (or ice) in Ezk 1^, where the LXX renders n^;: by KpvffraWos. The ancients regarded rock-crystal as a kind of congealed water, whence its name in Hebrew and Greek, It is really the most refined kind of quartz. It crystaDizes in hexagonal prisms with pyramidal apices. The Romans carved it into vases and goblets, some- times elaborately engraved. It was supplied to them from the Alps and India. Its use is now largely superseded by that of glass.
James Strahan.
CUBIT (Gr. iTTJxvs, lit. 'forearm'). — The most important Hebrew unit for measuring length was from the earliest times the cubit. This was approximately the length of the forearm from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger, and we find very frequent use of this measure in the OT. Like our OAvn ' foot ' as a measure of length, this standard was averaged at an early date, and many varied attempts have been made by metrologists to fix the exact length of the Hebrew cubit in English inches.
270
CUP
CUESE
The e^adence of the OT generally, and particularly of Ezekiel, goes to show that both before and after the Exile a longer and a shorter cubit were recog- nized. We find 'the cubit of a man' (Dt 3") dis- tinguished from a longer cubit used in the measure- ment of Ezekiel's Temple (Ezk 40^ 43'3). The ' cubit of a man ' is the measure in every-day use at the date of the writing of Deut. (probably in the time of Josiah). Ezekiel in describing the Temple of his vision uses a larger measure — one hand-breadth longer than the ordinary cubit. As the prophet's measurements correspond with the details of Solomon's Temple, he probably adopts the ancient cubit, generally used in the days of Solomon, in order that his new Temple may be an exact reproduction of the Solomonic edifice. The Chronicler (2 Ch "3^) speaks of the dimensions of this first Temple as being 'after the former measure.' Common tradition fixes the length of the cubit as six hand-breadths, and we have ground for concluding that the larger cubit used in build- ing in the age of Solomon measured seven hand- breadths.
It is remarkable that in Egypt (see F. L. Griffith, ' Notes on Egyptian Weights and Measures,' in PSBA xiv. fl8'J-2] 403) two cubits were in use from early times, viz. the ' short' cubit of six and the ' royal ' cubit of seven hand-breadths. The 'royal' cubit can be fixed with practical accuracy at 20-63 in. (Petrie, EB)-^ xxiv. 483"). Using this as a basis, we can fix the 'short' Egyptian cubit at 17'68 in., being six hand-breadths of 2'95 in. or 24 finger-breadths of '74 inches. It is uncertain whether the Hebrew system of measurement was originally derived from Egypt or not, but the similarity of the two systems makes such a con- clusion extremely probable.
Kennedy in HIDB iv. 909 brings forward evidence which seems to show that the cubit of later Judaism and particularly at the date when Josephus wrote his histories, had been approximated to the Roman- Attic standard cubit, which was measured from the elbow to the knuckle of the middle finger and was equal to 17'5 in. (ef. Smith, Diet, of Gr. and Bom. Ant.^ 1875, p. 1227).
The cubit was subdivided into the span, equal to i cubit ; the palm or hand-breadth, equal to ^th of a cubit ; and the finger-breadth or digit, j^th of a cubit. Four cubits formed a fathom, and six cubits a reed.
In the apostolic writings of the NT the word 'cubit' is found only once, viz. Rev 21", where the seer describes the angel going forth to measure the walls of the New Jerusalem : ' and he measured the wall thereof, a hundred and forty and four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is, of an angel.' The measure used by the writer here is the ordinary Grteco- Roman cubit, of which 400 went to the <rrddiov or arddLos of the preceding verse. The mention of 'an angel' does not imply any reference to the ' royal cubit,' but is, as Moliatt (EGT, ' Rev.,' 1910, p. 484) remarks, 'another naive reminder (cf. 19'*- ^^ 22^* **) that angels were not above men.' Swete says: 'The measurements taken by angelic hands are such as are in common use among men. . . . There is perhaps the further thought that men and angels are a-vi'8ov\oi (19^" 22'-') and men shall one day be IffdyyeXoi ' (Swete, Com. in lac). W. F. Boyd.