METROLOGY
197
METROLOGY
Of 125 Roman paces (Plin. ii, 23), or 606| feet of our measure. It thus falls below the furlong by 53^ feet. The distances between Jerusalem and the places Betha- ny, Jamnia, and Scythopolis, are given with tolerable exactness at 15 stades (John xi, 18), 240 stades (2 Mace, xii, 9), and 600 stades (2 Mace, xii, 29). In 2 Mace, xi, 5 there is an evident error, either of the author or of the text, in respect to the position of Bethsura, which is given as only 5 stades from Jerusalem. The Talmud- ists describe the stade under the term res, and regarded it as equal to 625 feet and 125 paces (Carpzov, Appar. p. 679). (./■) The mile, ^iiXiov, a Koman measure, equalling 1000 Koman paces, 8 stades, and 1618 English yards. See each in its place.
III. Measures ofCupadty.—\. Those for liquids were : (rt) The 5?, log (Lev. xiv, 10, etc.), originally signifying a " basin." (h) The "prt, hin, a name of Egyptian origin, frequently noticed in the Bible (Exod. xxix, 40 ; xxx, 24; Numb, xv, 4, 7, 9; Ezek. iv, 11; etc.). (c) r3, (iaTog, the bai/i, the name meaning "measured," the largest of the liquid measures (I Kings vii, 26, 38 ; 2 Chron. ii, 10 ; Ezra vii, 22 ; Isa. v, 10 ; Luke xvi, 16).
With regard to the relative values of these measures we learn nothing from the Bible, but we gather from Josephus (Ant. iii, 8, 3) that the bath contained 6 bins (for the bath equalled 72 xestce or 12 cho'es, and the hin 2 cho'es), and from the rabbinists that the hin contained 12 logs (Carpzov, Appar. p. 685).
2. The dry measure contained the following denomi- nations : (rt) The 3|5, cab, mentioned only in 2 Kings vi, 25, the name meaning literally holloio or concave, (b) The "ipi', (Jmer, mentioned only in Exod. xvi, 16-36. The same measure is elsewhere termed "(Ti'*^", issaron, as being the tenth part of an cphah (compare Exod. xvi, 36), whence in the A. V. "tenth deal" (Lev. xiv, 10 ; xxiii, 13 ; Numb, xv, 4, etc.). The word omer im- plies a heap, and secondarily a sheaf, (c) The nXD, sedh, or " measure," this being the etymological meaning of the term, and appropriatelj' applied to it, inasmuch as it was the ordinary measure for household purposes (Gen. xviii, 6; 1 Sam. xxv, 18; 2 Kings vii, 1, 16). The Greek equivalent, aarov, occurs in Matt. xiii,33; Luke xiii, 21. The seah was otherwise termed ^^^IIJ, shalish, as being the third part of an ephah (Isa. xl, 12 ; Psa. Ixxx, 5). ((/) The nS^X, ephdh, a word of Egyp- tian origin, and of frequent recurrence in the Bible (Exod. xvi, 36; Lev. v, 11; vi,20; Numb. v, 15; xxviii, .'); Judg. vi, 19; Ruth ii, 17; 1 Sam. i, 24; xvii, 17; Ezek. xiv, 11, 13, 14 ; xlvi, 5, 7, 1 1, 14). (e) The T^^h, lethek, iijiiKopoi;, or " half-homer," literally meaning what is poured out : it occurs only in Hos. iii, 2. (f) The ^loh, /io'me?-, meaning heap (Lev. xxvii, 16; Numb, xi, 32 ; Isa. V, 10 ; Ezek. xiv, 13). It is elsewhere termed cor, 13, from the circular vessel in which it was meas- ured (1 Kings iv, 22; v, 11; 2 Chron. ii, 10; xxvii, 5; Ezra vii, 22; Ezek. xiv, 14). The Greek equivalent, KopoQ, occurs in Luke xvi, 7.
The relative proportions of the dry measures are to a certain extent expressed in the names issaro?!, meaning a tenth, and shalish, a third. In addition, we have the Biblical statement that the omer is the tenth part of the ephah (Exod. xvi, 36), and that the ephah was the tenth part of a homer, and corresponded to the bath in liquid measure (Ezek. xiv, 11). The rabbinists supplement this by stating that the ephah contained three seahs, and the seah six cabs (Carpzov, p. 683).
The scale is constructed, it will be observed, on a combination of decimal and duodecimal ratios, the for- mer prevailing in respect to the omer, ephah, and homer, the latter in respect to the cab, seah, and ephah. In the liquid measure the duodecimal ratio alone appears, and hence there is a fair presumption that this was the original, as it was uudoubteiUy the most general prin-
ciple on which the scales of antiquity were framed (Bijckh, p. 38). Whether the decimal division was in- troduced from some other system, or whether it was the result of local usage, there is no evidence to show.
3. The absolute values of the liquid and dry measures form the subject of a single inquiry, inasmuch as the two scales have a measure of equal value, viz. the bath and the ephah (Ezek. xiv, 11) : if either of these can be fixed, the conversion of the other denominations into their respective values readily follows. Unfortunately, the data for determining the value of the bath or ephah are both scanty and conflicting. Attempts have Ijcen made to deduce the value of the bath from a comparison of the dimensions and the contents of the molten sea as given in 1 Kings vii, 23-26. If these particulars had been given with greater accuracy and fulness, they would have furnished a sound basis for a calculation ; but, as the matter now stands, uncertainty attends the statement. The diameter is given as 10 cubits, and the circumference as 30 cubits, the diameter being stated to be " from one brim to the other." Assuming that the vessel was circular, the proportions of the diameter and circumference are not sufficiently exact for mathemati- cal purposes, nor are we able to decide whether the di- ameter was measured from the internal or the external edge of the vessel. The difference, however, in either respect, is not sufficiently great to affect the result mate- rialh'. The shape of the vessel has been variously con- ceived to be circular and polygonal, cylindrical and hemispherical, with perpendicular and with bulging sides. The contents are given as 2000 baths in 1 Kings vii, 26, and 3000 baths in 2 Chron. iv, 5, the latter being probably a corrupt text. The conclusions drawn have been widely different, as might be expected. If it be assumed that the form of the vessel was cylindrical (as the description prima facie seems to imply), that its clear diameter was 10 cubits of the value (often esti- mated) of 19.0515 English inches each, and that its full contents were 2000 baths, then the value of the bath would be 4.8965 gallons; for the contents of the vessel would equal 2,715,638 cubic inches, or 9793 gallons. If, however, the statement of Josephus (.4 nt. viii, 3, 5), as to the hemispherical form of the vessel, be adopted, then the estimate would be reduced. Saigey, as quoted by Biickh (p. 261), on this hypothesis calculates the value of the bath at 18.086 French litres, or 3.9807 English gallons. If, further, we adopt Saalschiitz's view as to the length of the cubit, which he puts at 15 Dresden inches at the highest, the value of the bath will be fur- ther reduced, according to his calculation, to 10^ Prus- sian quarts, or 2.6057 English gallons; while at his k>wer estimate of the cubit at 12 inches, its value would be little more than one half of this amount (A rchiiol. ii, 171). On the other hand, if the vessel bulged, and if the diameter and circumference were measured at the neck or narrowest part of it, space might be found for 2000 or even 3000 baths of greater value than any of the above estimates. It is therefore hopeless to arrive at any satisfactory conclusion from this source. Neverthe- less, we think the calculations are not without their use, as furnishing a certain amount of presumptive evidence. For, setting aside the theory that the vessel bulged con- siderably, for which the text furnishes no evidence what- ever, all the other computations agree in one point, viz. that the bath fell far below the value placed on it by Josephus, and by modern writers on Hebrew archeology generally, according to whom the bath measures be- tween 8 and 9 English gallons. See Brazen Sea.