6 of the shadow cast by the sun from a body interposed between it and the dial-plate, on which the shadow falls. The Hebrew word, magalah, rendered 'dial' in 2 Kings xx. 11 and Is. xxxviii. 8, is in the same connection and in other places translated by 'degrees' (Psalms exx. cxxi, &c.), and by steps' (Exod. xx. 26), also stairs' (Ezek. xl. 6). The facts in connection with the mention of the sun-dial in Scripture, are these:Hezekiah was, through the gracious hand of God, rescued from a sickness which was likely to have proved fatal. The prophet Isaiah announced the deliverance from death; but Hezekiah required a sign for the confirmation of his faith. A sign was given -that sign which the king desired; the shadow, and as the shadow, so the sun returned ten degrees' (Is. xxxviii. 8). The writers of the narratives clearly intended to represent this as miracle. Attempts at some explanation on natural causes have failed. It has been alleged that the miracle consisted merely in the retrocession of the shadow by some atmospheric influence. Hezekiah is, however, spoken of as believing that the sun had returned ten degrees;' for thus only could he be represented to have gained an assurance from fact of the promised prolongation of his life. If, however, a real retrocession took place, the entire solar system would have been put into disorder; and that for a very inconsiderable end. In truth, the passage in 2 Kings xx. 8-11, is not necessary to the sense of the text, and wears an appearance of being an interpolation by a later hand. This rises to more than bare probability, in considering that verse 7 states that Hezekiah had 'recovered,' that is, before he asked for a sign. Yet in verse 8 we find him asking for a sign that the Lord will heal me.' The alleged miracle may have arisen from a poetic version of the event being translated at a later time into prose. It was the employment of obvious imagery for a poet or a prophet, in making a moral use of the king's recovery, to remark, as we say a man's days are lengthened, that Hezekiah's shadow (of death) had gone back, and his sun (of life) had more years to run (Job xi. 17). Such a symbolical improvement of the event, when put into plain prose and made part of a history, assumed at once a miraculous character. And yet the working of a later hand is seen in the want of correspondence in the numbers; for whereas the king's life was prolonged for fifteen years (6), the sun went back only ten degrees. If, according to some, the announcement of Hezekiah's recovery took place in the year 714, and he died in 699, A. C., the event corresponded not with the alleged retrocession, but with Isaiah's prediction. Of the nature of the dial here mentioned nothing is known, and conjecture is useless. As, however, the word denotes a flight of steps, so the chief feature of the dial,' that is, the gnomon or pointer, may have borne some such shape. Whatever it was, the dial was, in all probability, borrowed from the Babylonians, who had, for centuries before these events (A. C. cir. 713), been distinguished for astronomical knowledge; and Herodotus (ii. 109), expressly says that they communicated the sun-dial to the Greeks. The probability of the Babylonish origin of this dial is strengthened by its being ascribed to Ahaz, who had formed an alliance with Tiglath-pileser, king of Assyria, which took him to Damascus, whence his love of novelty led him to transplant to Jerusalem the pattern of an altar (2 Kings xvi. 7-16; comp. 2 Chron. xxviii. 16, seq.). DIAMOND (G. a, 'not,' and damân, 'to subdue;' hence adamant), a hard, transparent, glistening mineral body. Pliny declared it to be incombustible; Newton, however, conjectured, and more recent investigators have proved, that it is combustible, and has the same base as charcoal, namely, carbon. It has been doubted if the diamond is really mentioned in Scripture; but there seems good reason to recognise it in the shamir found in Jer. xvii. 1, where the 'point of a diamond' is spoken of as employed in writing, and we know from Pliny that a stylus tipped with a diamond was used by the ancients for making inscriptions. So hard a substance afforded a suitable metaphor for describing the obstinacy of the Jewish heart (Ezek. iii. 9. Zech. vii. 12). In Exod. xxxix. 11. Ezek. xxviii. 13, the diamond' does not appear to have been intended. Most of the ancient translators, with Josephus, under stand the onyx; Eichhorn, the beryll; others, the emerald. Very forcible is the metaphor employed by Jeremiah in the passage (xvii. 1) to describe the deeply inwrought sinfulness of the Jews: The The sin of Judah is written with a pen of iron, And with the point of a diamond; It is graven upon the table of their heart." There is a similar figure in Job (xix. 23, 24), 'Oh that my words were engraven with an iron point in the rock for ever! idea was borrowed from the practice of the Egyptians, whose writing and engraving, cut in their stone temples, had an antiquity when Jeremiah and Job wrote, and have survived to the present day. Yet are they in part defaced, and time will at length suc ceed in obliterating them. But the same sinful propensities with which Judah was reproached, still live in full force in human bosoms; nor will they cease to operate till the gospel shall have re-created human kind, and given to each of its members a new heart. Diana had the delicate and dangerous office of presiding over the birth of human beings, and so the Roman divinity presents a point of contact with the Greek, or rather Greek-Asiatic, in which character she bore the name of Artemis, and in the original comes before the readers of the New Testament under that appellation in Acts xix. 24-35. Artemis was a personification of the power of reproduction. Hence the peculiar symbols which she has on her person, as seen in the opposite figure, than which nothing can well be more dissimilar to the ordinary image given of Diana, whose attributes are the bow, the quiver, the girt-up robe, and the hound; whose person is a model of feminine strength, ease, and grace; and whose chief delight was found in hunting. 'Rejoicing in the chace, her golden bow.' The figures which the ancients have transmitted to us of Artemis are more or less full in their details; but while the original image of the goddess was little more than an almost shapeless trunk, said to have fallen from heaven, numerous attributes in course of time were centred in the idol, derived probably from various, especially northeastern lands, most of which had a more or less direct reference to her nature as a personification of conception and birth. Among her attributes may be mentioned the head with a turret, resembling Cybele; the nimbus stretching from the turret to the shoulders, representing the moon; on her bosom a wide necklace, exhibiting the zodiacal signs of the bull, the twins, and the crab; below them two wreaths, one of flowers, one of acorns; then three rows of breasts with DIA and stags, bees, and flowers, adorn the lower Around the image of Artemis was erected We present a view of what was probably one of these, which appear to have been carried about as a preservative in travel, and to have been suspended in houses as a species of charm. Indeed, so much was Artemis honoured, that she became a household divinity. From these facts we may learn how deeply-rooted was the Ephesian idolatry, and may infer the divine power of that word which brought it to ruin. DIBON (H. a marsh), the modern Dsiban, on the east of Jordan, lying somewhat north of Arnon, in the plain now called Elkura, which corresponds to the plain of Moab, a city that the Hebrews took from the Amorites, and which the Gadites rebuilt (Numb. xxxii. 1-5, 34). The place, in consequence, received the name of Dibon-gad (xxxiii. 45). It was subsequently assigned to Reuben (Josh. xiii. 17). Isaiah, in whose time it again belonged to the Moabites, calls it Dimon (xv. 9). DIET, a Greek word, in English letters denoting, first, the way or manner of living, and then the support of life or food, is found in Jer. lii. 34, as the translation of a word which in 2 Kings xxv. 30, is rendered allowance;' in Prov. xv. 17, dinner;' and in Jer. xl. 5, victuals.' The food of ancient Palestine would be determined by its productions, since it was a country that depended for the substantial things of life, mainly at least, on its own resources. Now it abounded generally in fruits of the earth, the rather because large portions of its surface were exceedingly productive, and its inhabitants cultivated agriOther articles culture almost exclusively. contain a statement of the chief vegetable as well as animal products of the land, which, as a matter of course, constituted the diet of its people. The fruits of the earth were eaten in part in their natural state, in part after being cooked. Bread was the staff of life; for the diet was chiefly vegetable, as, indeed, it is at the present day. Milk, either in a pure or coagulated state, honey, which might be gathered from the clefts of the rocks, and various roots, afforded grateful and salubrious sauces (Gen xviii. 8. Judg. v. 25). Only on rare and festive occasions did the Israelites indulge in animal food, which was originally (1 Sam. ii. 13) roasted, and not till a later period boiled (Gen. xxvii. 7. Judg. vi. 19. Exod. xii. 8, 9). The art of cookery, at least in its practical details, would be effectually taught, at any rate, by the demands made for its exercise in the public services of religion. Every country has some peculiarity in diet. The Hebrews, with other orientals, ate locusts prepared in several ways (Lev. xi. 22). Differences of usage in regard to food may serve to show that men's tastes are artificial, and that, even on this point, nothing save what is poisonous is' common or unclean.' The medicinal virtues of salt were, as a matter of fact, known by the Biblical nations at a very early pe riod, and its use entered largely into the preparation and consumption of their food (Lev. ii. 13. Job vi. 6). The fresh and vigorous health of primitive times and of modes of life, far more conformed to the laws of our nature than are those observances which ensue from a city life and manufacturing or literary pursuits, caused the appetite to be keen, and gave a relish to food which may well have dispensed with high seasonings and artificial condiments. Yet the aged, the sick, and the young, were indulged with more savoury or more simple diet (Gen. xxvii. 4, 19. 2 Sam. xiii. 10. 1 Cor. iii. 2). In earliest times the ordinary drink was water, which, to the arid and sometimes parched mouth of an oriental, has a freshness and sweetness of which those who live in moister climates can have no conception: 'Amidst the running stream he slakes his thirst; And if, the following day, he chance to find A new repast or an untasted spring, Blesses his stars, and thinks it luxury.' A draught of fresh milk was accounted a present worthy the acceptance of a prince. Among the acts which have rendered Jael immortal, is the presentation of a bowl of milk and what is called butter (Judg. v. 25). 'He asked water; she gave milk; She brought butter in a lordly dish. Sherbet, water mixed with the juice of lemons, and other simple beverages, were, as they continue to be, much in use. They also drank wine made from grapes, dates, &c. (see DRINK), either pure or mixed with water, and sometimes aromatic herbs, which more or less had an inebriating character (Gen. ix. 20; xiv. 18. Ps. lxxv. 8. Is. v. 22). The cup, glass, and bowl, were used for drinking vessels (2 Sam. xii. 3. Ps. xxiii. 5. Prov. xxiii. 31. Is. li. 17. Matt. xxvi. 39). These, if we may judge from what we see from the Egyptian monuments, were of various, and some very elegant, shapes. The lily, a natural ornament in Egypt, seems to have offered a type at once beautiful and convenient (1 Kings vii. 26). Before taking food, the Hebrews, especially in later times, were careful to wash at least their hands (Matt. xv. 2. Luke xi. 38) -a custom generally practised in the East, and rendered the more necessary in consequence of the heat of the climate. After the use of purifying water, the soul was raised to God in devout acknowledgment of his constant goodness, as again exemplified in the actual supply of recurring wants; a practice which, when observed with a due regard to propriety, is both becoming and useful, and which, having the express sanction of the Guide of man (Luke ix. 16. John vi. 11. Matt. xiv. 19; xv. 36; xxvi. 26; comp. 1 Tim. iv. 3), is approved by the heart, and tends both to elevate and strengthen the domestic affec tions. Every head of a family may, perhaps in Christian times should, be his own priest. The time of taking meals must depend so much on local and peculiar circumstances, that it is not easy to make, regarding those of the Israelites, general statements that shall be quite free from exception. The cool of the day, especially in Eastern countries, seems to be the most appropriate, if not also the most convenient time for the chief meal. And in the Roman period, late dinners (the Roman cœnæ) appear to have been not uncommon (Joseph. Life,' 44). But with a simple and agricultural people, mid-day would be suitable for a solid meal, especially as the heat would compel a cessation from labour for some hours. Here, then, we may perhaps fix the time for dinner: comp. 1 Kings xix. 6. In the morning, a meal was taken which, in Luke xiv. 12, is in our version called a dinner,' but whose correct name would be breakfast (John xxi. 12). Among the later Jews, it was accounted a part of good morals not to eat anything before the first prayer. On the sabbath, Josephus declares, their laws required the Jews to dine at the sixth hour, that is, twelve o'clock at noon (Joseph. Life,' 54). Two chief meals seem to have been accounted sufficient. The time of taking the second would in a measure depend on the hour of breakfast. The ancient Hebrews sat on the ground, or on carpets, while taking their customary food (Gen. xxvii. 19. Judg. xix. 6. 1 Sam. xx. 24, 25); pretty much the same as they do at the present time. A skin is placed on the floor of the tent, or soil, around which the company place themselves, with the food in the middle. Instead of a skin, a table, or rather large stool, is in some instances employed. According as convenience serves, the persons either content themselves with their garments, or sit on skins or carpets. The table would, of course, vary with the number and distinction of the members of the family. When required, the Israelites would easily find in Egypt models of convenience, elegance, or sumptuousness in regard to furniture (1 Sam. xx. 29. 2 Sam. ix. 7, 11. 1 Kings x. 5. Luke xxii. 21. Acts xvi. 34). When Palestine came under the influence of Greek and Roman manners, the Jews reclined on cushions, couches, or divans, especially on extraordinary and festive occasions (comp. Amos. vi. 4; ii. 8). Hence passages in the New Testament which are translated by sit,' give a false impression, and should be rendered recline (Matt. ix. 10; xxvi. 7. Luke vii. 37). This custom prevailed so much, that at last it came to be usual in ordinary life (Luke xvii. 7). Each divan was fitted to accommodate three persons, and was hence termed a triclinium. In the preparation of these couches great luxury was sometimes displayed (Joseph. 'Antiq.' xv. 9, 3). Three triclinia were sometimes put together, leaving a long open space for the table, or trays, bearing food. From the relative position of the guests, an attempt has been made to explain the phrase 'leaning (that is, reclining) on Jesus' bosom,' applied to the apostle John (John xiii. 23; xxi. 20); but too little definite information on the positions at table is in our possession to allow of a very clear notion being hence gained. Nor do we think it improbable that Jesus and his associates conformed more to the old Hebrew than to the modern Pagan fashions, though words descriptive of the modern usages are employed. At any rate, the Hebrew literature has the means of explaining the phrase, lying in a person's bosom.' Agreeably to the warm and genial character of the Israelites, it seems to come from the most intimate of all relations, and so to convey, in the case of John and Jesus, a degree of tenderness which heathen manners would not suggest (Gen. xvi. 5. Deut. xiii. 6; xxviii. 56). Nathan's poor man's lamb not only ate of his own meat and drank of his own cup, but lay in his bosom' (2 Sam. xii. 3; comp. 1 Kings iii. 20. Prov. v. 20. Is. xl. 11. Lam. ii. 12. Luke xvi. 22. John i. 18). Vegetables and flesh-meat cut into pieces were set in large dishes before the company, each of whom helped himself with his fingers, placing his morsel on a piece of bread, which he ate, unaided by our modern accompaniments of knives and forks. Persons who sat near each other took their food from the same dish; and as this proximity was generally occasioned by some kind of intimacy, so to dip the hand into the dish with a person,' was a token of real or apparent friendship (John xiii. 27). To one who was specially beloved, a delicate morsel might be presented. Hence the offering of a 'sop' to a person caused him to be marked and distinguished (John xiii. 26). Sometimes, however, the master of the house served others, especially when it was intended to show special kindness or attention to any one (1 Sam. i. 4; comp. John xiii. 26). The portions given were generally of a choice kind, or they were larger than an ordinary share (Gen. xliii. 32, 34. Neh. viii. 10. Esther ix. 19). This kind of attention was observed specially on festive occasions (Rev. xi. 10). The leg and the shoulder were accounted the best parts of an animal. Mention is also made of the choice bones,' which may have meant the loin (Ezekiel xxiv. 4). According to rabbinical authority, wine, which was the chief, sometimes the only beverage at meals, was drunk both during and after eating. When the meal was over, a prayer was again made and the hands again washed. On special and festive occasions, deviations from the general course would natu rally be introduced. The pleasures of the appetite were enjoyed by the Hebrews, but scarcely 'the pleasures of the table.' They were not like the Romans, a feasting people. Neither the art of cooking nor that of eating seems ever to have been systematically studied, though Roman domination in time brought Roman vices. A religious element prevailed in the social festivities of the sons of Abraham, and kept them free from corruptions, a result which was aided by the prevalent simplicity of manners. Banquets, therefore, they can hardly be said to have known. Feasts, however, were common. These took place as a part of and immediately after certain religious observances, so that the domestic and the religious affections were brought into intimate union and encouraged under the same potent influences. Tobit (ii. 1) states, that at the end of the feast of Pentecost there was prepared for him a good dinner, at which, when he saw abundance of meat, he bade his son 'go and bring what poor man soever thou shalt find out of our brethren who is mindful of the Lord.' This was in agreement with the injunctions of the law, which commanded the feast of (seven) weeks to be kept, 'rejoicing before the Lord thy God, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy maid-servant, and the Levite that is within thy gates, and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, that are among you' (Deut. xvi. 9-11; comp. xii. 12). So also at the feast of Tabernacles (Deut. xvi. 13; comp. 1 Sam. ix. 13; xvi. 3). Slaves were invited (1 Kings iii. 15). On extraordinary occasions feasts were customary (1 Kings i. 9. Zeph. i. 7), such as important agreements (Gen. xxxi. 54). Family events were celebrated by feasts; as, the weaning of children (Gen. xxi. 8), nuptials (Gen. xxix. 22 Judg. xiv. 10. John ii. 1, seq.), birthdays (Gen. xl. 20. Job i. 4. Matt. xiv. 6), the arrival and departure of persons endeared by friendship or love (Gen. xxxi. 27. 2 Sam. iii. 20. 2 Kings vi. 23. Luke xv. 23, seq.), funerals (Hosea ix. 4), sheep-shearing (1 Sam. XXV. 2, seq. 2 Sam. xiii. 23), and the vintage (Judg. ix. 27). The guests were invited by slaves (Prov. ix. 3. Matt. xxii. 3, 4. Luke xiv. 17) even a second time, when, from respect or hesitation, they delayed to accept the invitation. Among the Romans, the same slaves assigned to the guests their respective seats. Whether this custom prevailed among the Palestinian, as it did among the Egyptian Jews, is not determined. When they arrived at the house, they were admitted at the portal or 'straight gate,' which, when they were seated at table, was closed, so as to ensure security and peace against the crowd which, on festive occasions, would, in a great city, be likely to assemble before the house. Those who, having been invited, had come late, after the |