VI. It is important to observe the extraordinary re- aemblance of the cherubim, as described in Scripture, to the symbdical religious foncies of heathen nitons. U is not trae, in any eenee, to say, with Kurz, that the ommal character is tar more predominant in the em- blems of heathen pantheism. Even if we concede (which b more than doubtftil) that the simplest con- ception of chembim was represented by winged men, we find four-winged and six-winged human figures in the sculptures of Nineveh (Layard, i, 126). In fi&ct, there ie no ektgle dkrubic combination^ whether of bull, eagle, and man (Layard, Nhteoeh^ i, 127) ; man, lion, and eagle (Ibid. pp. 70, 849) ; man and eagle (Ibid, i, 04); man and Uon (Ibid, ii, 468) ; or, to take the most prevalent (both in Scripture and in the Ass3rrian scnlp- tares), man and bull (Ibid, i), which may not be pro- Umfy paralleled. In foct, thete Toood-cuU mi^ ^and for direct iUtutratioM of Ezek. xli, 19; Rev. iv, 6 sq. ; 1 Kings vii, 29, etc. ; and when we alao find '* wheels withfai wheels" represented in the same sculptures (Ibid, ii, 448), it is Mr. Layard's natural inference that Eiekiel, " seeking to typify certain divine attributes, chose forms ^miMT not only to himself, but to the peo- ple whom he addressed" (Id. Ibid.,' see, too, JVmmmA
and Babybm, ii, 648) ; or, as we should greatly prefer to see it expressed, the funfliar decorations of the As- syrian temples moulded the forms of his imagination even at its most exalted moments. But, as we have already seen, Ezekiel was far more likely to have been supplied with this imagery by the sacerdotal sympa- thitti which impressed his memory with the minutest details of the temple at Jerusalem ; and the same sym- bols were not exclusively Assyris^ but were no less familiar to the Egyptians (Porphyr. de Abttinent. iv, 9 ; Ritter, Erdkunde, viii, 947; Witsius, ^yypt. U, 18), the Persians (Hdt. iii, 116; Ctes. Ind. xii; Plin. vii, 22; Wilkinson's Anc. Egypt,^ passim; Chardin's and Niebuhr's Traeeia), the Greeks (Pausan. i, 24, 6), the Arabians (D'Herbelot, BibUothkque Orient, s. v. Si- morg), and many other nations (Plin. x, 49, 69 ; Park- hurst's LexicoKy B. v.). On this subject, generally, see Creuzer, Symbol i, 496 ; Rhode, ffeiL Sage, p. 217 ; and Rddiger in Ersch and Gruber's Encydcpddie, s. v. Cherub. The similarity to the sphinx is such as to have led, even in early times, to a very strong belief that the idea of the Mosaic cherubim was in some way derived from them (Clem. Alex. Strom. V, cap. vi, § 87, ed. Sylb. p. 240; Orig. c. Celt, iii, p. 121; Euseb. Prxep. Evang. iii, 12). For a number of weighty argu- ments to thb efiect, see Bochart, Hieroz. II, xviii, xxxiv, and xli ; Spencer, ut aup. bk. Ill, chap, iv ; and especially Hengstenberg, Lie BB. Mo$. u. jEgypt. p. 167 sq. Besides these external coincidences, still more striking, perhaps, aro the cherubic /imc<»oiw as- cribed in Greek mythology to the fiery-breathing bulls which guarded the golden fleece (Ovid, Met vii, 104), to the winged dragon of the Hesperides, to the resus- citated Phoenix, to the Gryphons (lion-eagles) who kept the Arimaspians from tiieir guarded gold (.£8ch. Prom. V, 848 ; Meld, ii, 1 ; comp. Milton, Par. Loat^ ii, 948), and ttf the thundering-horses that draw the char- iot of Jupiter (Horace, Od. i, 84, 7). Influenced by too exclusive an attention to these single resemblances. Herder identifies the cherubim with the mythic gold- guarding monsters of antiquity (Geiat. der Eebr. Poet. i, 168), and J. D. Michaelis with the Equi Tonantes (De Cherubia; compare Velthuysen, Von den Cherub. ; Schleusner, Lex. N. Teat. s. v. Xipovft). Similarly, Justin Martyr considers that Plato borrowed from the Scriptures his imfvbv SpftOj or ** winged chariot" of Zeus (irpb^^'EXXrivagf p. 80). From these conclusions we dissent. It seems far more likely that the Hebrews were, in the most ancient times, acquainted with a sym- bol familiar to so many nations, than to suppose either that they borrowed it from the Egyptians, or that any other nations adopted it from them. In fiict, the con' ception belongt to the common cycle of Oriental tradiiiony fragments of which were freely adopted by the Hebrew writers, who always infused into them a nobler mean- ing and an unwonted truth. — Kitto, Cyclop, s. v.; Smith, Diet. s. v.
VII. For further information on the subject, see (^ addition to works and monographs cited above) Hufna- gel, Der Chervbhim im Paradieae (Francfurt a. M. 1821 [fanciful]); Gabler fai Eichhom's Urgeachichtey II, i, 246 sq. ; Meyer, Bibddetd. p. 171 sq. ; Carpzov, Appar. p. 268 sq. ; Bemer, GoUead. ii, 86 sq. ; GrQneisen, in the Stutt. KunatblaUy 1884, No. 1-6; Jour. Sacred Lit. Oct. 1866, p. 164 sq. ; Critid Sacriy i, 120 ; Leone, De Chervbima (Amst. 1647; also Helmst 1666, and in , Spanish, Amsterd. 1664) ; Wepler, De Chervbia (Marb. 1 1777); Geissler, De Cherubim (Yitemb. 1661); Hende- I work, De Cherub, et Sercqth. (fiiegiom. 1887) ; Jac. Ode, I Comment, de Angeliay I, v, 78 sq. ; Deyling, Obt. Sacr. ii, 442; Michaelis, in the Comment. Soc. Reg. GoU. i, 167 sq. ; Velthuysen, Vonden Cherubinen (Braunschw. ! 1764); Hutchinson, Esxpot. of Cherubim (in his Workty Lend. 1749) ; Amel, Erdrterungy pt. ii, p. 467-600; Bo- chart, Hieroz. pt. i, bk. iii, ch. 5 ; I^brun, Eniretienty pt. ii, p. 68 sq. (Amst. 1788); Fairbaim, Typolngyy i, 242 sq. ; G. Smith, Doct. of the Cherubim (Lond. 1860);-