A general name for several kinds of prickly plants. 1. In the
curse denounced against the earth, Gen. iii, 18, its produce is
threatened to be “thorns and thistles,” קוץ ודרדר, in the Septuagint
ἀκάνθας καὶ τριϐόλους. St. Paul uses the same words, Heb. vi, 8, where
the last is rendered “briers;” they are also found Hos. x, 8. The word
_kutz_ is put for “thorns,” in other places, as Exod. xxii, 6; Judges
viii, 7; Ezek. ii, 6; xxviii, 24; but we are uncertain whether it means
a specific kind of thorn, or may be a generic name for all plants of a
thorny kind. In the present instance it seems to be general for all
those obnoxious plants, shrubs, &c, by which the labours of the
husbandman are impeded, and which are only fit for burning. If the word
denotes a particular plant, it maybe the “rest-harrow,” a pernicious
prickly weed, which grows promiscuously with the large thistles in the
uncultivated grounds, and covers entire fields and plains, in Egypt and
Palestine. From the resemblance of the Hebrew _dardar_, to the Arabic
word _dardargi_, Scheuchzer supposes the _cnicus_ to be intended. 2.
תות, from its etymology, must be a kind of thorn, with incurvated
spines, like fish hooks, similar to those of the North American “witch
hazel.” Celsius says that the same word, and of the same original in
Arabic, is the “black thorn,” or “sloe tree,” the _prunus spinosa_ of
Linnæus. 3. סירים. It is impossible to determine what plants are
intended by this word. Meninski says that _serbin_, in the Persic
language, is the name of a tree bearing thorns. In Eccles. vii, 6, and
Nahum i, 10, they are mentioned as fuel which quickly burns up; and in
Hosea ii, 6, as obstructions or hedges; it may be the _lycium Afrum_. 4.
סלון, mentioned Josh. xxiii, 13; Ezek. ii, 6, xxviii, 24. From the
vexatious character ascribed to this thorn in the places just referred
to, compared with Num. xxxiii, 55; Judges ii, 3; it is probably the
_kantuffa_, as described by Bruce. 5. By שבים, Num. xxxiii, 55, may be
intended goads, or sharp-pointed sticks, like those with which cattle
were driven. 6. The שית, Isa. v, 6; x, 17, must mean some noxious plant
that overruns waste grounds. 7. The word צנים, Num. xxxiii, 55; Josh.
xxiii, 13; Isa. v, 5. It seems, from its application, to describe a bad
kind of thorn. Hiller supposes it to be the _vepris_. Perhaps it is the
_rhamnus paliurus_, a deciduous plant or tree, a native of Palestine,
Spain, and Italy. It will grow nearly to the height of fourteen feet,
and is armed with sharp thorns, two of which are at the insertion of
each branch, one of them straight and upright, the other bent backward.
8. כרקנים, translated “briers,” Judges viii, 16. “There is no doubt but
this word means a sharp, jagged kind of plant: the difficulty is to fix
on one, where so many offer themselves. The Septuagint preserves the
original word. We should hardly think Gideon went far to seek these
plants. The thorns are expressly said to be from the wilderness, or
common hard by; probably the _barkanim_ were from the same place. In our
country this would lead us to the blackberry bushes on our commons; but
it might not be so around Succoth. There is a plant mentioned by
Hasselquist, whose name and properties somewhat resemble those which are
required in the _barkanim_ of this passage: “_Nabka paliurus Athenæi_,
is the _nabka_ of the Arabs. There is every appearance that this is the
tree which furnished the crown of thorns which was put on the head of
our Lord. It is common in the east. A plant more proper for this purpose
could not be selected; for it is armed with thorns, its branches are
pliant, and its leaf of a deep green like that of ivy. Perhaps the
enemies of Christ chose this plant, in order to add insult to injury by
employing a wreath approaching in appearance that which was used to
crown emperors and generals.” In the New Testament, the Greek word
translated “thorn,” is ἄκανθα; Matt. vii, 16, xiii, 7, xxvii, 29, John
xix, 2. The note of Bishop Pearce on Matt. xxvii, 29, is this: “The word
ἀκανθῶν may as well be the plural genitive case of the word ἄκανθος, as
of ἄκανθα; if of the latter, it is rightly translated ‘of thorns,’ but
the former would signify what we call ‘bear’s foot,’ and the French
_branche ursine_. This is not of the thorny kind of plants, but is soft
and smooth. Virgil calls it _mollis acanthus_. So does Pliny: and Pliny
the elder says that it is _lævis_, “smooth;” and that it is one of those
plants that are cultivated in gardens. I have somewhere read, but cannot
at present recollect where, that this soft and smooth herb was very
common in and about Jerusalem. I find nothing in the New Testament
concerning this crown which Pilate’s soldiers put on the head of Jesus,
to incline one to think that it was of thorns, and intended, as is
usually supposed, to put him to pain. The reed put into his hand, and
the scarlet robe on his back, were meant only as marks of mockery and
contempt. One may also reasonably judge by the soldiers being said to
plat this crown, that it was not composed of such twigs and leaves as
were of a thorny nature. I do not find that it is mentioned by any of
the primitive Christian writers as an instance of the cruelty used
toward our Saviour before he was led to crucifixion, till the time of
Tertullian, who lived after Jesus’ death at the distance of above one
hundred and sixty years. He indeed seems to have understood ἀκανθῶν in
the sense of thorns, and says, ‘_Quale oro te, Jesus Christus sertum pro
utrogue sexu subiit? Ex spinis, opinor, et tribulis._’ [What kind of a
crown, I beseech you, did Jesus Christ sustain? One made of thorns and
thistles, I think.] The total silence of Polycarp, Barnabas, Clemens
Romanus, and all the other Christian writers whose works are now extant,
and who wrote before Tertullian, in particular, will give some weight to
incline one to think that this crown was not platted with thorns. But as
this is a point on which we have not sufficient evidence, I leave it
almost in the same state of uncertainty in which I found it.” See
GARDEN.
curse denounced against the earth, Gen. iii, 18, its produce is
threatened to be “thorns and thistles,” קוץ ודרדר, in the Septuagint
ἀκάνθας καὶ τριϐόλους. St. Paul uses the same words, Heb. vi, 8, where
the last is rendered “briers;” they are also found Hos. x, 8. The word
_kutz_ is put for “thorns,” in other places, as Exod. xxii, 6; Judges
viii, 7; Ezek. ii, 6; xxviii, 24; but we are uncertain whether it means
a specific kind of thorn, or may be a generic name for all plants of a
thorny kind. In the present instance it seems to be general for all
those obnoxious plants, shrubs, &c, by which the labours of the
husbandman are impeded, and which are only fit for burning. If the word
denotes a particular plant, it maybe the “rest-harrow,” a pernicious
prickly weed, which grows promiscuously with the large thistles in the
uncultivated grounds, and covers entire fields and plains, in Egypt and
Palestine. From the resemblance of the Hebrew _dardar_, to the Arabic
word _dardargi_, Scheuchzer supposes the _cnicus_ to be intended. 2.
תות, from its etymology, must be a kind of thorn, with incurvated
spines, like fish hooks, similar to those of the North American “witch
hazel.” Celsius says that the same word, and of the same original in
Arabic, is the “black thorn,” or “sloe tree,” the _prunus spinosa_ of
Linnæus. 3. סירים. It is impossible to determine what plants are
intended by this word. Meninski says that _serbin_, in the Persic
language, is the name of a tree bearing thorns. In Eccles. vii, 6, and
Nahum i, 10, they are mentioned as fuel which quickly burns up; and in
Hosea ii, 6, as obstructions or hedges; it may be the _lycium Afrum_. 4.
סלון, mentioned Josh. xxiii, 13; Ezek. ii, 6, xxviii, 24. From the
vexatious character ascribed to this thorn in the places just referred
to, compared with Num. xxxiii, 55; Judges ii, 3; it is probably the
_kantuffa_, as described by Bruce. 5. By שבים, Num. xxxiii, 55, may be
intended goads, or sharp-pointed sticks, like those with which cattle
were driven. 6. The שית, Isa. v, 6; x, 17, must mean some noxious plant
that overruns waste grounds. 7. The word צנים, Num. xxxiii, 55; Josh.
xxiii, 13; Isa. v, 5. It seems, from its application, to describe a bad
kind of thorn. Hiller supposes it to be the _vepris_. Perhaps it is the
_rhamnus paliurus_, a deciduous plant or tree, a native of Palestine,
Spain, and Italy. It will grow nearly to the height of fourteen feet,
and is armed with sharp thorns, two of which are at the insertion of
each branch, one of them straight and upright, the other bent backward.
8. כרקנים, translated “briers,” Judges viii, 16. “There is no doubt but
this word means a sharp, jagged kind of plant: the difficulty is to fix
on one, where so many offer themselves. The Septuagint preserves the
original word. We should hardly think Gideon went far to seek these
plants. The thorns are expressly said to be from the wilderness, or
common hard by; probably the _barkanim_ were from the same place. In our
country this would lead us to the blackberry bushes on our commons; but
it might not be so around Succoth. There is a plant mentioned by
Hasselquist, whose name and properties somewhat resemble those which are
required in the _barkanim_ of this passage: “_Nabka paliurus Athenæi_,
is the _nabka_ of the Arabs. There is every appearance that this is the
tree which furnished the crown of thorns which was put on the head of
our Lord. It is common in the east. A plant more proper for this purpose
could not be selected; for it is armed with thorns, its branches are
pliant, and its leaf of a deep green like that of ivy. Perhaps the
enemies of Christ chose this plant, in order to add insult to injury by
employing a wreath approaching in appearance that which was used to
crown emperors and generals.” In the New Testament, the Greek word
translated “thorn,” is ἄκανθα; Matt. vii, 16, xiii, 7, xxvii, 29, John
xix, 2. The note of Bishop Pearce on Matt. xxvii, 29, is this: “The word
ἀκανθῶν may as well be the plural genitive case of the word ἄκανθος, as
of ἄκανθα; if of the latter, it is rightly translated ‘of thorns,’ but
the former would signify what we call ‘bear’s foot,’ and the French
_branche ursine_. This is not of the thorny kind of plants, but is soft
and smooth. Virgil calls it _mollis acanthus_. So does Pliny: and Pliny
the elder says that it is _lævis_, “smooth;” and that it is one of those
plants that are cultivated in gardens. I have somewhere read, but cannot
at present recollect where, that this soft and smooth herb was very
common in and about Jerusalem. I find nothing in the New Testament
concerning this crown which Pilate’s soldiers put on the head of Jesus,
to incline one to think that it was of thorns, and intended, as is
usually supposed, to put him to pain. The reed put into his hand, and
the scarlet robe on his back, were meant only as marks of mockery and
contempt. One may also reasonably judge by the soldiers being said to
plat this crown, that it was not composed of such twigs and leaves as
were of a thorny nature. I do not find that it is mentioned by any of
the primitive Christian writers as an instance of the cruelty used
toward our Saviour before he was led to crucifixion, till the time of
Tertullian, who lived after Jesus’ death at the distance of above one
hundred and sixty years. He indeed seems to have understood ἀκανθῶν in
the sense of thorns, and says, ‘_Quale oro te, Jesus Christus sertum pro
utrogue sexu subiit? Ex spinis, opinor, et tribulis._’ [What kind of a
crown, I beseech you, did Jesus Christ sustain? One made of thorns and
thistles, I think.] The total silence of Polycarp, Barnabas, Clemens
Romanus, and all the other Christian writers whose works are now extant,
and who wrote before Tertullian, in particular, will give some weight to
incline one to think that this crown was not platted with thorns. But as
this is a point on which we have not sufficient evidence, I leave it
almost in the same state of uncertainty in which I found it.” See
GARDEN.