There was an ancient Jewish proverb,――often quoted with great respect
in the Rabbinical writings,――“He that does not teach his son a trade,
trains him to steal.” In conformity with this respectable adage,
every Jewish boy, high or low, was invariably taught some mechanical
trade, as an essential part of his education, without any regard to
the wealth of his family, or to his prospect of an easy life, without
the necessity of labor. The consequence of this was, that even the
dignified teachers of the law generally conjoined the practice of some
mechanical business, with the refined studies to which they devoted
the most of their time, and the surnames of some of the most eminent
of the Rabbins are derived from the trades which they thus followed in
the intervals of study, for a livelihood or for mental relaxation. The
advantages of such a variation from intense mental labor to active and
steady bodily exercise, are too obvious, both as concerns the benefit
of the body and the mind, to need any elucidation; but it is a happy
coincidence, worth noticing, that, the better principles of what is now
called “MANUAL LABOR INSTRUCTION,” are herein fully carried out, and
sanctioned by the authority and example of some of the most illustrious
of those ancient Hebrew scholars, whose mighty labors in sacred lore,
are still a monument of the wisdom of a plan of education, which
combines bodily activity and exertion with the full development of
the powers of thought. The labors of such men still remain the wonder
of later days, and form in themselves, subjects for the excursive
and penetrating range of some of the greatest minds of modern times,
throwing more light on the minute signification and local application
of scripture, than all that has been done in any other field of
illustrative research.
“In the education of their son, the parents of Saul thought it
their duty according to the fashion of their nation, not only
to train his mind in the higher pursuits of a liberal education,
but also to accustom his hands to some useful trade. As we learn
from Acts xviii. 3, ‘he was by trade a tent-maker,’ occupying
the intervals of his study-hours with that kind of work. For it
is well established that this was the usual habit of the most
eminent Jewish scholars, who adopted it as much for the sake of
avoiding sloth and idleness, as with a view to provide for their
own support. The Jews used to sum up the duties of parents in a
sort of proverb, that ‘they should circumcise their son, redeem
him, (Leviticus chapter xxvii.) teach him the law and a _trade_,
and look out a wife for him.’ And indeed the importance of
some business of this kind was so much felt, that a saying is
recorded of one of the most eminent of their Rabbins, that ‘he
who neglects to teach his son a trade, does the same as to bring
him up to be a thief.’ Hence it is that the wisest Hebrews held
it an honor to take their surnames from their trades; as Rabbins
Nahum and Meir, the _scriveners_ or book writers,” (a business
corresponding to that of printers in these times,) “Rabbi
Johanan the _shoemaker_, Rabbi Juda the _baker_, and Rabbi Jose
the _currier_ or _tanner_. How trifling then is the sneer of
some scoffers who have said that Paul was nothing but a stitcher
of skins, and thence conclude that he was a man of the lowest
class of the populace.” (Witsius § I. ¶ 12.)
The trade which the parents of Saul selected for their son, is
described in the sacred apostolic history as that of a “tent-maker.”
A reference to the local history of his native province throws
great light on this account. In the wild mountains of Cilicia, which
everywhere begin to rise from the plains, at a distance of seven or
eight miles from the coast, anciently ranged a peculiar species of
long-haired goats, so well known by name throughout the Grecian world,
for their rough and shaggy aspect, that the name of “Cilician goat”
became a proverbial expression, to signify a rough, ill-bred fellow,
and occurs in this sense in the classic writers. From the hair of these,
the Cilicians manufactured a thick, coarse cloth,――somewhat resembling
the similar product of the camel’s hair,――which, from the country
where the cloth was made, and where the raw material was produced, was
called _cilicium_ or _cilicia_, and under this name it is very often
mentioned, both by Grecian and Roman authors. The peculiar strength
and incorruptibility of this cloth was so well known, that it was
considered as one of the most desirable articles for several very
important purposes, both in war and navigation, being the best material
for the sails of vessels, as well as for military tents. But it was
principally used by the Nomadic Arabs of the neighboring deserts of
Syria, who, ranging from Amanus and the sea, to the Euphrates, and
beyond, found the tents manufactured from this stout cloth, so durable
and convenient, that they depended on the Cilicians to furnish them
with the material of their moveable homes; and over all the east,
the _cilicium_ was in great demand, for shepherd’s tents. A passage
from Pliny forms a splendid illustration of this interesting little
point. “The wandering tribes, (_Nomades_,) and the tribes who plunder
the Chaldeans, are bordered by Scenites, (_tent-dwellers_,) who are
themselves also wanderers, but take their name from their tents, which
they raise of _Cilician_ cloth, wherever inclination leads them.” This
was therefore an article of national industry among the Cilicians, and
afforded in its manufacture, profitable employment to a great number
of workmen, who were occupied, not in large establishments like the
great manufactories of modern European nations, but, according to the
invariable mode in eastern countries, each one by himself, or at most
with one or two companions. Saul, however, seems to have been occupied
only with the concluding part of the manufacture, which was the making
up of the cloth into the articles for which it was so well fitted
by its strength, closeness and durability. He was a maker of tents
of Cilician camlet, or goat’s-hair cloth,――a business which, in its
character and implements, more resembled that of a sail-maker than any
other common trade in this country. The details of the work must have
consisted in cutting the camlet of the shape required for each part
of the tent, and sewing it together into the large pieces, which were
then ready to be transported, and to form, when hung on tent-poles,
the habitations of the desert-wanderers.
This illustration of Saul’s trade is from Hug’s Introduction,
Vol. II. note on § 85, pp. 328, 329, original, § 80, pp. 335,
336, translation. On the manufacture of this cloth, see Gloss.
Basil, _sub voc._ Κιλικιος τραγος, &c. “Cilician goat,――a
rough fellow;――for there are such goats in Cilicia; whence also,
things made of their hair are called _cilicia_.” He quotes also
Hesychius, Suidas, and Salmasius in Solinum, p. 347. As to the
use of the cloths in war and navigation, he refers to Vegetius,
De re milit. IV. 6, and Servius in Georgica III. 312.――The
passage in Pliny, showing their use by the Nomadic tribes of
Syria and Mesopotamia for _shepherd’s tents_, is in his Natural
History, VI. 28. “Nomadas infestatoresque Chaldaeorum, Scenitae
claudunt, et ipsi vagi, sed a tabernaculis cognominati quae
ciliciis metantur, ubi libuit.” The reading of this passage
which I have adopted is from the Leyden Hackian edition of
Pliny, which differs slightly from that followed by Hug, as the
critical will perceive. Hemsen quotes this note almost verbatim
from Hug. (Hemsen’s “Apostel Paulus,” page 4.)
The particular species or variety of goat, which is thus
described as anciently inhabiting the mountains of Cilicia,
can not now be distinctly ascertained, because no scientific
traveler has ever made observations on the animals of that
region, owing to the many difficulties in the way of any
exploration of Asia Minor, under the barbarous Ottoman sway.
Neither Griffith’s Cuvier nor Turton’s Linnaeus contains any
reference to Cilicia, as inhabited by any species or variety
of the genus _Capra_. The nearest approach to certainty, that
can be made with so few data, is the reasonable conjecture
that the Cilician goat was a variety of the species CAPRA
_Aegagrus_, to which the common domestic goat belongs, and which
includes several remarkable varieties,――at least six being well
ascertained. There are few of my readers, probably, who are not
familiar with the descriptions and pictures of the famous Angora
goat, which is one of these varieties, and is well-known for
its long, soft, silky hair, which is to this day used in the
manufacture of a sort of camlet, in the place where it is found,
which is Angora and the region around it, from the Halys to the
Sangarius. This tract of country is in Asia Minor, only three
or four hundred miles north of Cilicia, and therefore at once
suggests the probability of the Cilician goat being something
very much like the Angora goat. (See Modern Traveler, III. p.
339.) On the other side of Cilicia also, in Syria, there is an
equally remarkable variety of the goat, with similar long, silky
hair, used for the same manufacture. Now Cilicia, being directly
on the shortest route from Angora to Syria, and half-way between
both, might very naturally be supposed to have another variety
of the CAPRA _Aegagrus_, between the Angoran and the Syrian
variety, and resembling both in the common characteristic of
long shaggy or silky hair; and there can be no reasonable doubt
that future scientific observation will show that the Cilician
goat forms another well-marked variety of this widely diffused
species, which, wherever it inhabits the mountains of the
warm regions of Asia, always furnishes this beautiful product,
of which we have another splendid and familiar specimen in
the Tibet and Cashmere goats, whose fleeces are worth more
than their weight in gold. The hair of the Syrian and Cilician
goats, however, is of a much coarser character, producing a much
coarser and stouter fibre for the cloth.
On the subject of Paul’s trade, the learned and usually
accurate Michaelis was led into a very great error, by taking
up too hastily a conjecture founded on a misapprehension of the
meaning given by Julius Pollux, in his Onomasticon, on the word
σκηνοποιος (_skenopoios_,) which is the word used in Acts xiii.
3, to designate the trade of Saul and Aquilas. Pollux mentions
that in the language of the old Grecian comedy, σκηνοποιος was
equivalent to μηχανοποιος, (_mechanopoios_,) which Michaelis
very erroneously takes in the sense of “a maker of mechanical
instruments,” and this he therefore maintains to have been
the trade of Saul and Aquilas. But it is capable of the most
satisfactory proof, that Julius Pollux used the words here
merely in the technical sense of theatrical preparation,――the
first meaning simply “a scene-maker,” and the second “a
constructor of theatrical machinery,”――both terms, of course,
naturally applied to the same artist. (Michaelis, Introduction,
IV. xxiii. 2. pp. 183‒186. Marsh’s translation.――Hug, II. § 85,
original; § 80, translation.)
The Fathers also made similar blunders about the nature of
Saul’s trade. They call him σκυτοτομος, (_skutotomos_,) “a
skin-cutter,” as well as σκηνορραφος, “a tent-maker.” This
was because they were entirely ignorant of the material used
for the manufacture of tents; for, living themselves in the
civilized regions of Greece, Italy, &c. they knew nothing of
the habitations of the Nomadic tent-dwellers. Chrysostom in
particular, calls him “one who worked in skins.”
Fabricius gives some valuable illustrations of this point.
(Bibliotheca Graeca, IV. p. 795, _bb._) He quotes Cotelerius,
(ad. Apost. Const. II. 63,) Erasmus, &c. (ad Acts xviii. 3,)
and Schurzfleisch, (in diss. de Paulo, &c.) who brings sundry
passages from Dio Chrysostom and Libanius, to prove that there
were many in Cilicia who worked in _leather_, as he says;
in support of which he quotes Martial, (epigraph xiv. 114,)
alluding to “_udones cilicii_,” or “_cilician cloaks_,” (used
to keep off rain, as water-proof,)――not knowing that this word,
_cilicium_, was the name of a very close and stout cloth, from
the goat’s hair, equally valuable as a covering for a single
person, and for the habitation of a whole family. In short,
Martial’s passage shows that the Cilician camlet was used like
the modern camlet,――for _cloaks_. Fabricius himself seems to
make no account of this _leather_ notion of Schurzfleisch; for
immediately after, he states (what I can not find on any other
authority) that “even at this day, as late books of travels
testify, variegated cloths are exported from Cilicia.” This is
certainly true of Angora in Asia Minor, north-west of Cilicia,
(Modern Traveler, III. p. 339,) and may be true of Cilicia
itself. Fabricius notices 2 Corinthians v. 1: and xii. 9, as
containing figures drawn from Saul’s trade.