Montgomery, ■William B., a missionary to the Osage Indians, who fionrished in the early half of this century, died in 1834. He publislied a translation into the Osage language of various jiortions of Scripture.
Month (usually "d'in, cho'desh, i. e. new moon; later also IT^I^, ye'rach, Chald. n^% yerach' ; Gr. iiijv, etc.). The terms for '• month" and " moon" have the same close connection in the Hebrew language as in our own and in the Indo-European languages generally ; we need only instance the familiar cases of the (ireek fiifv and niivi], and the Latin mensis ; the German mond and mouat ; and the Sanscrit mdsa, which answers to both month and moon. The Hebrew chodesh is per- haps more distinctive than the corresponding terms in other languages ; for it expresses not simply the idea of a lunation, but the recurrence of a period commencing definitely with the neio moon; it is derived from the word chadush, " new," which was transferred in the lirst instance to the "new moon," and in the second instance to the " month," or, as it is sometimes more fully ex- pressed, C'^^'i ^y^! "a month of days" (Gen. xxix, 14; Numb, x^i, 20, 21; comp. Dent, xxi, 13; 2 Kings XV, 13). The term yerach is derived from yarcach, "the moon;" it occum occasionally in the historical (Exod. ii, 2; 1 Kings vi, 37, 38; viii, 2; 2 Kings xv, 13), but more frciiuently in the poetical portions of the Bible.
1. The most important point in connection with the month of the Hebrews is its length, and the mode by which it was calculated. The didicultics attending this inquiry are considerable, in consequence of the scanti- ness of the data. Though it may fairly be presumed from the terms used that the month originally corre- sponded to a lunation, no reliance can be i>laced on the mere verbal argument to prove the exact length of the month in historical times. The word appears even in the earliest times to have passed into its secondary sense, as describing a period approaching to a lunation; for in (ien, vii, 11 ; viii, 4, where we first meet with it, equal periods of 30 days are described, tlie interval be- tween the 17th days of the second and tlie seventh months being e(iual to 150 days ((kmi. vii, 11 ; viii, 3, 4). We liave tlierefore in this instance an ai)|iroximation to the solar month, and as, in addition to this, an indica- tion of a double calculation by a solar and a lunar year has been detected in a subscciuent date (for from viii, 14, compared with vii, 11, we find that the total duration of the flood exceeded the year by eleven days ; in other
words, by the preebe difference between the lunar year of 354 days and the solar one of 365 days), the passage has attracted considerable attention on the part of cer- tain critics, who have endeavored to deduce from it ar- guments prejudicial to the originality of the Bible nar- rative. It lias been urged that the Hebrews themselves knew nothing of a solar month, that they must have derived their knowledge of it from more easterly na- tions (Ewald, Jahrbiich. 1854, p. 8j, and consequently that the materials for the narrative and the date of its composition must be referred to the period when close intercourse existed between the Hebrews and the Baby- lonians (Von Bohlen's Introd. to Gen. ii, 155 sq.). It is unnecessary for us to discuss in detail the arguments on which these conclusions are founded ; we submit in an- swer to them that the data are insufficient to form any decided opinion at all on the matter, and that a more obvious explanation of the matter is to be found in the Egyptian system of months. To prove the first of these points, it will be only necessary to state the various calculations founded on tliis passage: it lias been de- duced from it (1) that there were 12 months of 30 days each [see Chronology]; (2) that there were 12 months of 30 days, with 5 intercalated days at the end to make up the solar year (Ewald, I. c.) ; (3) that there were 7 months of 30 days, and 5 of 31 days (Von Boh- len) ; (4) that there were 5 months of 30 days, and 7 of 29 days (Knobel, in Gen. viii, 1-3) ; or, lastly, it is pos- sible to cut away the foundation of any calculation whatever by assuming that a period might have elapsed between the termination of the 150 days and the 17th day of the 7th month (Ideler, C'/irono/. i, 70). "The year being lunar, the interval is, in fact, but 148 days ; the discrepancy, however, is of no account" (Browne, Ordo Sceclorum, p. 326) : both extremes are included, as is usual in Hebrew computations. See Deluge. But, assuming that the narrative implies equal months of 30 days, and that the date given in viii, 14 docs involve the fact of a double calcLdation by a solar and a lunar year, it is unnecessary to refer to the Babylonians for a solution of the difficulty. The month of 30 days was in use among the Egyptians at a period long anterior to the period of the exodus, and formed the basis of their computation either by an unintercalated year of 360 days or an intercalated one of 365 (Kawliiison's He- rodotus, ii, 283-286). Indeed, the Bible itself furnishes us with an indication of a double year, solar and lunar, in that it assigns the regulation of its length indiffer- ently to both sun and moon ((Jen. i, 14). See Year.