THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
sephus, assarén; Ex. xxix. 40), designated usually as “a tenth” or as the “ tenth of an ephah.” Josephus gives the omer as equivalent to seven Attic cotyle (Ant., III., vi. 6). The corresponding measure for liquids appears as the tenth of a bath (see below, and cf. Ezek. xlv. 14), but no proper name is given for it. For liquids the most common measure is the hin, corresponding to the ephah for dry measure. Consequently the parts or fractions are often mentioned (one-half, one-third, one-fourth, one-sixth; Ex. xxix. 40; Num. xv. 4; Ezek. iv. 11). Josephus (Ané., III., viii. 3) and Jerome (on Ezek. iv. 11) define the hin as equal to two Attic choas, that is, to a sixth of a metrétés [that is about one and one-half gallons]; this gives the equation 1 hin=12 log = one-half seah = one-sixth bath, and the Talmud often defines the hin in this way. The corresponding dry measure is designated in Ezekiel (xlv. 13) as one-sixth of an ephah, and no proper name for this dry measure is known. The seah (Gen. xviil. 6 [A. V., “ measure ’’]; Josephus, Ant., IX., iv. 5, saton; Septuagint, metron) seems to have been a dry measure, though the Talmud knows of it as also used for liquids. From the translation by the Sep-
4 log = 1 cab
*7i log = *1 cab *] omer
12 los — 3 cab *12 omer = 1 hin 24 log = 6’cab= *340mer= 2 hin 72 log 18 cab = 10 omer = 6Ghin
[860 log 90 cab = 50 omer = 30 hin 720 log 180 cab = 100 omer = 60 hin
tuagint of ephah by ‘three measures” and of “ third ”’ in Ps. Ixxx. 5 by the same word, it appears that the seah was equivalent to one-third ephah or 24 log. The dry measure most in use was the ephah, and it receives correspondingly frequent mention (Bx. xvi. 86; Lev. v. 11, etc.). The passages in the Bible indicate that in early times as in late it was in common use. Fractions of it which appear in the Old Testament are the third (Ps. Ixxx. 5; disguised in the A. V. by the translation “ measure’’) and the sixth (Ezek. xlv. 13). The liquid measure corresponding to the ephah was the bath (e.g., I Kings vil. 36; Septuagint batos, or metrétés; Josephus, Ant., VIIL., ii. 9, bados), and Josephus makes this equivalent to the Attic metrétés (about nine gallons), while Ezekiel equates bath and ephah. A tenth is mentioned in Ezek. xlv. 14, corresponding to the tenth of an ephah, ut sup. A lethekh appears in Hos. i. 2 (the only place where it is mentioned) as a dry measure (for barley), and is the equivalent of half a homer according to tradition (e.g., Septuagint héemikoros; Vulg. corus dimidius); but it is doubtful whether a unit of this capacity existed; the Vatican manuscript has instead “ bottle of wine,” which better suits the context. The largest measure is the homer (Lev. xxvil. 16; Isa. v. 10); Ezekiel (xlv. 11) makes it the equivalent of ten baths and also of ten ephahs, a conclusion from which is that the homer served both for liquids and for such things as seed, as was the case with the Assyrian imir. According to Ezek. xlv. 14, the kor and the homer were identical measures; and in a number of pas-
sages the kor appears as a dry measure. Josephus regards the kor as the equivalent of ten medimne. The table of measures of capacity given herewith results from the preceding discussion.
From the last series one might easily receive the impression that here is not a pure sexagesimal system, but a crossing with the decimal system. Espe-
cially does the series 1 homer =10 2. The Basis ephahs‘=100 omers have this appear- Sexagesimal. ance. But an examination of the series
shows that the ephah or bath, the middle factor of the series, is in the Babylonian series purely sexagesimal, consisting of seventy-two units (the mina), and exactly so the kor consists of 720 minas, its position in the sexagesimal system making it not ten times the ephah but twelve times the maris, a unit which fell out of the Hebrew system; consequently the presence of what looks like the decimal system is quite fortuitous. The only remnant of the decimal system left is the issaron, ut sup.; the measures indicated by asterisks in the table below and their relations show that the issaron was not an original part of the system and is mentioned in P only, though Ezekiel has the divi-
1 seah 3seah = 1 ephah 15seah = 5 ephah = 1 lethekh] 30 seah = 10 ephah = 2 lethekh = 1 homer
sion of the bath into tenths. In Ezekiel in the same connection there is met the division of the bath into sixths, but the early division of the ephah-bath was into thirds. The bath (for liquids) does not appear to have been divided into tenths; P speaks of the hin and its parts, which are not derived from the decimal system. In dry measure, conversely, the sexagesimal seah and cab disappear and in P are displaced by the tenth of an ephah; this is probably to be placed alongside of the introduction of certain coin-values and weights in the later period. For the original system both the issaron and the lethekh are to be stricken out. A distinction of the dry measure from liquid measure results in the tables on page 291, which exhibit purely sexagesimal features. To these the modern equivalents are added.
As an assistance toward finding the absolute value of the capacity of these measures Thenius (in 7'SK, 1846, pp. 72 sqq., 297 sqq.) started with the assertion
of the rabbis already noted that the vol-
3. Absolute ume for the log was equivalent to that Values. of six eggs, from which he deduced that the modern equivalent of the log is
.2945 liter and of the bath 20.1215 liters. But it is evident that such data afford no sure conclusion, and neither for cubit nor bath are secure data available. With regard to the origins of the Hebrew system, it is to be remembered that not merely the relative proportions of the different measures but the fundamental measure remained the same in the adoption of the system by the Hebrews. The Egyptian system can not be brought into connection here,