DEESS
deceive
men).
Thus,
for
instance,
among
the
Baby-lonians,
the
Assyrians,
the
Arabs,
the
Egyptians,
a
profound
importance
was
attached
to
dreams
;
there
were
professional
interpreters
of
them
(cf.
Gn
iO^-
»
41',
Dn
2'),
and
manuals
were
compiled
to
aid
the
work
of
elucidation
(cf.
the
Oneirocritica
of
Artemidorus
of
Ephesus).
Wiser
theorists
might
discriminate
between
dreams,
but
popular
superstition
tended
to
regard
them
all
as
omens,
to
be
explained,
as
far
as
possible,
in
accordance
with
definite
rules.
1.
Among
the
Jews.
—
In
both
Testaments
we
find
significance
attached
to
dreams
(Gn
37»-
=
41«s,
Jg
7",
Dn
2"
T"-,
Mt
1™
2"-
2",
Ac
23"
27''),
and
in
OT
times
it
seems
that
a
great
deal
of
vulgar
superstition
existed
with
regard
to
such
phenomena;
similarly
necromancy
and
sorcery,
though
discouraged
by
the
higher
thought
of
the
nation
(cf.
Dt
IS"-
")
,
were
undoubtedly
practised.
We
find
hardly
any
traces,
however,
of
dreams
being
regularly
sought;
1
S
28"
may
be
one;
and
in
Gn28i2-i»
and
1
K
3'
it
is
possible
to
suppose
a
reference
to
the
practice
of
sleeping
in
a
sacred
locality
in
order
to
receive
a
Divine
communication.
On
the
whole,
the
general
trend
of
OT
teaching
is
as
follows
:
—
Dreams
may
in
some
cases
be
genuine
communications
from
God
(Job
33",
Jer
2328),
and
as
such
are
reverenced
(Gn
20'
31'™-),
though
Nu
12»-8
treats
them
as
an
inferior
medium;
but
there
are
false
dreams
and
ijdng
dreamers,
against
whom
precautions
are
necessary;
and
the
idea
that
habitual
dreaming
is
a
certain
sign
of
Divine
inspiration
is
stoutly
combated
(cf.
Jer
2325.
32
27'
298,
Zec
lO^,
Ec
5'),
and
it
is
definitely
recognized
that
the
interpretation
of
dreams
belongs
to
God,
and
is
not
a
matter
of
human
codifica-tion
(cf.
Gn
408).
2.
General.
—
The
consideration
of
dreams
is
partly
a
subject
for
the
sciences
which
treat
of
the
general
relations
between
body
and
spirit,
and
partly
a
matter
of
common
sense.
It
seems
clear
that
dreams
are
connected
with
physical
states,
and
that
their
psychological
origin
lies
mainly
in
the
region
beneath
the
'threshold
of
consciousness.'
But
all
dreams
and
all
waking
states
are
states
of
consciousness,
whether
it
be
partial
or
complete,
and
as
such
are
subject
to
law;
if
any
are
to
be
regarded
as
'
supernatural,'
it
must
be
owing
not
to
their
methods
but
to
their
messages.
Some
dreams
convey
no
message,
and
can
be
explained
as
valuable
only
by
a
resort
to
superstition.
Others
may
be
real
revelations,
and
as
such
Divine;
in
abnormal
cases
the
power
of
spiritual
perception
may
be
intensified
and
heightened
in
the
dream-state,
and
thus
an
insight
into
Divine
truth
may
be
obtained
which
had
been
denied
to
the
waking
consciousness.
Similarly
Condorcet
is
said
to
have
solved
in
a
dream
a
mathematical
problem
which
had
baSled
his
waking
powers,
and
Coleridge
to
have
dreamt
the
poem
of
Kubla
Khan.
But
under
any
circumstances
the
interpretation
of
a
dream
'belongs
to
God';
the
question
whether
its
message
is
a
Divine
communication
or
not
must
ultimately
be
answered
by
an
appeal
to
the
religious
consciousness,
or
in
other
words
to
the
higher
reason.
The
awakened
intelligence
must
be
called
in
to
criticise
and
appraise
the
deliverances
received
in
dreams,
and
its
verdict
must
decide
what
measure
of
attention
is
to
be
paid
to
them.
Dreams,
in
short,
may
be
the
source
of
suggestions,
but
scarcely
of
authori-tative
directions.
A.
W.
F.
Blunt.
DRESS.
—
The
numerous
synonyms
for
'dress'
to
be
found
in
our
EV
—
'apparel,'
'attire,'
'clothes,'
'
raiment,'
'
garments,'
etc.
—
fairly
reflect
a
similar
wealth
of
terminology
in
the
original
Hebrew
and
Greek,
more
especially
the
former.
As
regards
the
particular
articles
of
dress,
the
identification
of
these
is
in
many
cases
rendered
almost
impossible
for
the
English
reader
by
the
curious
lack
of
consistency
in
the
renderings
of
the
translators,
illustrations
of
which
will
be
met
with
again
and
again
in
this
article.
For
this
and
other
reasons
it
will
be
necessary
to
have
recourse
to
trans-
DRESS
literation
as
the
only
certain
means
of
distinguishing
the
various
garments
to
be
discussed.
1.
Materials.
—
Scripture
and
anthropology
are
in
agreement
as
to
the
great
antiquity
of
the
skins
of
animals,
wild
and
domesticated,
as
dress
material
(Gn
3"
'coats
of
skin';
cf.
for
later
times.
He
11").
The
favourite
materials
in
Palestine,
however,
were
wool
and
flax
(Pr
31").
The
finest
quaUty
of
linen
was
probably
an
importation
from
Egypt
(see
Linen).
Goats'
hair
and
camels'
hair
supplied
the
materials
for
coarser
fabrics.
The
first
certain
mention
of
silk
is
in
Rev
18'2,
for
the
meaning
of
the
word
so
rendered
in
Ezk
161"-
"
is
doubtful,
and
the
silk
of
Pr
31^2
(AV)
is
really
'
fine
linen'
as
in
RV.
2.
Under
Garments.
—
(a)
The
oldest
and
most
widely
distributed
of
all
the
articles
of
human
apparel
is
the
loin-cloth
(Heb.
'525r),
originally
a
strip
of
skin
or
cloth
wrapped
round
the
loins
and
fastened
with
a
knot.
Among
the
Hebrews
in
historical
times
it
had
been
displaced
in
ordinary
life
by
the
shirt
or
tunic
(see
below).
The
loin-cloth
or
waist-cloth,
however,
is
found
in
a
number
of
interesting
survivals
in
OT,
where
it
is
unfortunately
hidden
from
the
English
reader
by
the
translation
'
girdle,'
a
term
which
should
be
reserved
for
an
entirely
different
article
of
dress
(see
§
3).
The
universal
sign
of
mourning,
for
example,
was
the
'girding'
of
the
waist
with
an
'ezBr
of
hair-cloth
(EV
'sackcloth').
Certain
of
the
prophets,
again,
as
exponents
of
the
simple
life,
wore
the
waist-cloth
as
their
only
under
garment,
such
as
Elijah,
who
'was
girt
about
with
a
loin-cloth
(EV
'girdle')
of
leather'
(2
K
18),
and
John
the
Baptist
(Mt
3<,
Mk
1»).
Isaiah
on
one
occasion
wore
an
'izor
of
hair-cloth
(Is
202),
and
Jeremiah
on
another
occasion
one
of
linen
(Jer
13>i-
).
The
noun
and
the
cognate
verb
are
frequently
used
in
figurative
senses,
the
point
of
which
is
lost
unless
it
is
remembered
that
the
waist-cloth
was
always
worn
next
the
skin,
as
e.g.
Jer
13",
Is
11',
the
figure
in
the
latter
case
signifying
that
righteousness
and
faithfulness
are
essential
and
inseparable
elements
in
the
character
of
the
Messianic
'Shoot.'
(6)
The
aprons
of
Ac
19'^
were
the
Roman
semidnctium,
a
short
waist-cloth
worn
specially
by
slaves
and
work-
men
(see
illust.
in
Rich,
Diet,
of
Rom.
andGr.
Antiq.,
s.v.).
(c)
In
early
times
the
priests
wore
a
waist-cloth
of
linen,
which
bore
the
special
name
of
the
ephod
(1
S
2'"),
and
which
the
incident
recorded
in
2
S
6™-.
—
David,
as
priest,
dancing
before
the
ark
—
shows
to
have
been
of
the
nature
of
a
short
kilt.
By
the
Priests'
Code,
however,
the
priests
were
required
to
wear
the
under
garment
described
under
Breeches.
See,
further,
HOSEN.
(d)
In
OT,
as
has
been
said,
the
everyday
under
garment
of
all
classes
—
save
for
certain
individuals
or
on
special
occasions
—
is
the
shirt
or
tunic
(kuttoneth,
a
term
which
reappears
In
Greek
as
chitBn,
and
probably
in
Latin
as
tunica).
The
uniform
rendering
of
EV
is
coat,
only
Jn
I928
RVm
'tunic'
A
familiar
Assyrian
sculpture,
representing
the
siege
and
capture
of
Lachish
by
Sennacherib,
shows
the
Jewish
captives,
male
and
female
alike,
dressed
in
a
moderately
tight
garment
fitting
close
to
the
neck
(cf.
Job
30")
and
reaching
almost
to
the
ankles,
which
must
represent
the
Icuttoneth
of
the
period
as
worn
in
towns.
That
of
the
peasantry
and
of
most
workmen
was
probably
both
looser
and
shorter,
resembling
in
these
respects
its
modem
repre-sentative,
the
kamees
(Lat.
camisia,
our
'chemise')
of
the
Syrian
fellahin.
As
regards
Sleeves,
which
are
not
expressly
mentioned
in
OT—
but
see
RVm
at
Gn
378
(Joseph)
and
2
S
13"
(Tamar)
—
three
modes
are
found.
An
early
Egyptian
representation
of
a
group
of
Semitic
traders
(c.
e.g.
2000)
shows
a
coloured
sleeveless
tunic,
which
fastens
on
the
left
shoulder,
leaving
the
right
shoulder
bare.
The
Lachish
tunics,
above
mentioned,
have
short
sleeves
reaching
half-way
to
the
elbows.
This
probably
repre-
